YEC vs FE Part 1: Evidence for YEC

[Dan_Eastwood]

@jeffb

Allen, and @Dan_Eastwood: I’m believing you should be familiar enough with YEC to know that the fundamental stance (ignoring any “bad apples” among us) is a great appreciation for operational science. Which seems to be the issue here. That’s what it would mean to be a true YEC follower. I could elaborate, but I believe you get my point.

The Historical versus Operational Science argument is a rabbit hole I won’t follow, except to note there is no difference.

@jeffb

@AllenWitmerMiller

I consider this “societal harm” question a very important question.

Honestly, this “science-denialim” and potential “great societal harm” from people being YECs is baffling to me!

AND

@jeffb

@AllenWitmerMiller

It is serious.

And to me, so is avoiding any discouragement to individuals wanting to believe the Word of God.

So now we are getting to the nitty-gritty. There is nothing about science that discourages people from believing in God. (As evidence, most Christians are fully accepting of science). There is some contradiction to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that interpretation is not doctrinal to Christianity.

There IS harm in science denial. (As evidence, the first two deaths in the US from Measles in a decade.) More generally, there IS harm in gaslighting people about the meaning of science. Science denial is a lie. It’s baffling to me (and others) that some people are so willing to accept that which is evidentially true.

At very least, people ought to be able to separate their beliefs about faith and science. YEC already do this for many aspects of science; they argue fiercely against evolution, but not against the laws of physics. Physics is a far greater problem for a Young Earth than is evolution.