Answer my questions first.
I mean what I say. Further, I give two fundamental basis for the comparison - the broad rejection of scientific consensus, and the commitment to literalist dogma. They are joined at the hip by the same 4,000 year old ANE cosmology, with the spacial embraced by FE and the temporal by YEC.
At your insistence, no and no. The reason for no prior answers is likely these questions are not germane to the comparison of FE and YEC, other than YEC enjoying the sizable backing of much of fundamentalist and evangelical churches. As such, the object of these journals and conferences is apologetics and not science.
4 Likes
This would appear to be the product of having a sufficiently all-encompassing echo chamber, that YECs with a PhD stay YECs.
I seem to remember reading in Numbers’ The Creationists, that back in the early days (I think this was in the 1950s, before the publication of The Genesis Flood), the nascent YEC community had troubles getting a YEC through a Geology PhD without them stopping being YEC.
I’m sure if FE achieved the numbers (and concentration of numbers) that YEC has, it would get its own PhDs, conferences and ‘peer-reviewed’ (scare-quotes intentional) “technical journals”.
No need to be cagey.
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Do not know of #4.
Here are a couple of conferences
You know, all that these things do is show that YECism is more cargo cult than generic delusion. Does that help? I am not sure it does.
5 Likes
The conferences probably serve as social gathering for people with this interest. I go to gaming conventions to play games. I hear there is even a wire convention - imagine that! 
5 Likes
Certainly. No and no. (But that’s not relevant to the point that YEC and FE are equally absurd scientifically.) Okay, your turn.
2 Likes
Have any of the four published a paper with any biomedical significance, as in producing something of sufficient value that nonYECs have cited it in the context of their own work?
2 Likes
And are there ANY young-earther PhDs who are not young-earth due to religious hermeneutics (such as those motivated by their interpretation of the Bible or the Quran or some other religious text?)
If there was compelling evidence for a young earth, one would expect to find plenty of scientists supporting the idea, regardless of their religious or non-religious inclinations. In the 1960’s the spiel from Gish, Morris, and Whitcomb was basically: The only reason scientists reject a young-earth view is because they hate God and worship evolution. That’s the background I grew up in that I had to slowly learn me way out.
10 Likes
All you are doing is showing that YEC and flat-Earth are incomparable in popularity.[1] That has little or no bearing on whether they are comparable under other criteria.
You aren’t even doing that very well. YEC and flat-earth are much, much more comparable in popularity to each other than to old-and-round-earth. ↩︎
6 Likes
Ah. I see where the problem is now. You think science has some definition which does not include some reference to a community of experts. I think any such definition is unsupportable. When you say
I would like to know what definition of “science” you are employing here that does not refer to a community of experts.
As for the question, Sewell answered it. The fourth journal I had in mind is sort of like PNAS for YEC:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism
I think there’s actually another one put out by the 7th Day Adventist Geoscience Research Institute, but that one’s not as active anymore:
Not only that, but there are multiple industries that should be interested in these ideas, if YECism really offered superior models in how things in nature work.
YEC organizations should have billion-dollar consulting arms for the biomedical industry, pharmaceuticals, oil & gas, agriculture, etc.
But how do YEC organizations make their money? Donations, merchandising and tourism.
4 Likes
You say this as if this is some sort of gotcha. Yes in practice, the way science is done relies in part on things like peer review and expert concensus. And for laypeople who do not know or understand all the nuances at play, they’re going to have to rely on the scientific community. But what is the alternative, a community of facebook Karens, “Truth Social” posters, and institutions with faith-statements?
2 Likes
That would depend how you are defining “expert.” Do you think there is a single person who qualifies in the YEC community by criteria that no one in the Flat Earth community would?
In any event, I think you are missing the point of the OP. We could just as easily ask “Is it unfair to compare the Unabomber to the Son of Sam?” If one were to argue that, because the Unabomber was much more sophisticated in the methods he used to commit his murders and wrote more coherent manifestos, the comparison is unfair, I believe that would be to miss the point to same degree that you are here.
4 Likes
I will jump in here to address (with my opinions) the original question of the thread, the one in the title.
No, it’s not unfair in principle to do that comparison, and the thread is full of legit comments about why. In a respectful conversation with another person, the comparison is useful (even recommended) to illustrate why you think that YECism is a damaging complex of falsehood, and to further illustrate why (for example) it reduces credibility of Christianity etc. It’s easy for me to picture such a conversation, because I had several of them many years ago. There was nothing inherently disrespectful about it.
But that’s different from saying (either in general or to a person’s face) that their YECism is equivalent to flat-earthism without understanding the religious (or hermeneutic or whatever) roots of their YECism. (It’s a common delusion/lie among YECs that they are scientific skeptics, and this forum provides numerous examples.) This matters because in fact the only honest argument for YECism is something like this: “yes I see the evidence for the great age of the earth, but that evidence doesn’t account for the evidence in the bible.” There is literally no other reason an informed person can doubt the age of the earth.
Whether you or anyone else can or should respect that reason, it matters because a person who acknowledges that their YECism is due to biblicism then has to answer the question of whether they are also a geocentrist. They have the right to construct a hermeneutic that embraces a young earth but not geocentrism, and if they do that, then IMO it would be disrespectful to tell them that their YECism is the same as flat-earthism.
Hope that makes sense.
8 Likes
I think that illustrates the real problem. You think mistake rationalisation for rational argument. Even if we accept that YEC has a “community of experts” that is not sufficient to make YEC scientific any more than it makes Astrology or UFOlogy scientific. Thus your assertion here - which offers no other criteria - is obviously incorrect.
Is it not at least plausible that the same problem is found in much YEC work?
Shouldn’t any definition of science - in the usual sense - include reference to the empirical evidence ? To building up a coherent picture of reality based on that evidence ? And shouldn’t it exclude beliefs primarily based on religion ? It is here that YEC fails, and fails badly. The empirical evidence so strongly supports an ancient Earth that a Young Earth view is scientifically untenable,
And that is what you have to deal with.
4 Likes
Ah, credentialism. Not a good way to argue, especially when the vast majority of scientists are not YECs and, yes, think it’s absurd if they think about it at all.
Fortunately for you, I reject credentialism. The real reason YEC is absurd isn’t because of who dislikes it. A real judgment requires examination of the data, which I have done at great length. You should try it.
3 Likes
I asked for your definition of science. I can wait while you think about it. Not like a century though, which is how long philosophy of science has thought about it and realized there isn’t really an airtight objective one.
When you post without linking to any previous post, nobody can know who you’re talking to. But perhaps it was me?
Science is a set of practices used to obtain reliable knowledge about the universe. Science is that collected body of knowledge. Science is what scientists do. Different definitions for different contexts. I don’t however know of any definition that refers to a community of experts, nor do I know why any of this is relevant to the topic at hand.
You tried to assert that YEC is not as absurd as FE because there are more PhDs who like the former than the latter. I claim that popularity is not a good index of absurdity, and that your claim is an example of naked credentialism. Further, if we’re playing credentialism, a comparison of // YEC and FE with mainstream science would show the difference between the two to be minimal. Both attract insignificant minorities, and the insignifigance is more pronounced the more we restrict our survey to relevant fields rather than just “PhDs”.
5 Likes
Anyone who has a decent general education, and is adept in a technological world, has all that is required to recognize that YEC is absurd. It is not necessary to go down some philosophy or sociology of science rabbit hole.
6 Likes