Young Earth Creationism: 10-20 Year Predictions

Conversation
,
1

I’ve been following YEC for 30 years now. Back in the 90’s, there wasn’t a great deal of scientific support for it (at least what I could find). I’ve researched it off and on during that time, and was always glad to see what was being discovered.

Over the past few months I’ve chosen to research it heavily again. I’m certainly more encouraged now than ever in belief in The Global Flood, and a young earth.

So it got me pondering, from this observed “trajectory”, what the future holds. I’m old enough to have watched this topic for 3 decades now. But I’m also young enough to be able to watch it for most likely the next 2 decades (unless all the rock climbing, whitewater kayaking, skiing, or motorcycle riding takes me out early).

Given that, I thought I’d start a post about predictions. I’ll start with a few (and perhaps add more later).

Some YEC predictions over the next 10-20 years:

  • More PhD-ed scientists like Dr Ron Neller (Flood Expert Finds Evidence for Noah’s Flood · Videos · Creation.com) adhering to The Global Flood
  • More Global Flood scientific research similar to the recent bent rock layer studies done in the Grand Canyon’s Tapeats Sandstone.
  • Possibly more Creation-based laboratories and research centers.
  • Computer modeling of aspects of The Global Flood.
  • More evidence for The Global Flood (of course)
  • In this forum: More people adhering to The Global Flood and a Young Earth.

So, there’s a list to start with. Feel free to bookmark this, and bring it back up to me in the years ahead (in case I’m wrong)!

Now I’m curious: Who else has some Origins related predictions over the next 10-20 years? Doesn’t have to be specific to YEC.

2

I’ve been paying attention to the trend in creationism for the last 25 years. The general trend for creationism and intelligent design is downward.

Research polls (e.g. Gallup, Pew Research) shows that belief in YECism had been trending downward for the past couple decades. Google Trends indicates that interest in creationism (and intelligent design) has also progressively trended downward over the past 15+ years.

And demographics aren’t in favor of creationists, as the younger generation tends to demonstrate an even lower belief in creationism than older generations. As the population ages, we should expect the downward trend in belief creationism to continue.

Looking at geographic distribution, belief in creationism is prominent in the U.S. Bible Belt. I suspect creationist ministries will still be able to get enough funding (primarily donations) to keep trucking along. But I don’t expect anything other than the same rote message they’ve been peddling for decades.

There will be no breakthroughs in creationist scientific research (lol). Creationists have been rehashing the same arguments for decades and I don’t expect that to ever change. Creationism (and ID) will remain just as irrelevant over the next couple decades as they are today.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise.

8 Likes
3

This is nothing more than a fallacious Argument from Authority.

What matters is NOT the number of “PhD-ed scientists”, but whether these PhD-ed scientists can produce serious research either supporting “The Global Flood” (:rofl: at the pretentious capitalised definitive article, incidentally), or at least casting serious doubt on conventional geology.

Neller’s shtick of doing nothing more than producing vague “geobabble” videos for YEC apologetics ministries, does not count.

Nor does Nathaniel Jeanson’s absurd Traced.

Citation please!

Are there any “Creation-based laboratories and research centers”?

What we appear to have is mostly Creation-based apologetics ministries – ICR, CMI, AiG, etc. Lots of rhetoric – very little (if any) serious research or laboratory experiments.

This would first require a self-consistent model of “The Global Flood” (:rofl: again) that did not involve vaporising all life (“heat problem” again).

“More” would first require any evidence – which you have not provided to date.

Continued defense of Creationism requires either:

  1. evidence of creation (which, per above, we’ve yet to see);

  2. an audience that is sufficiently gullible and/or ignorant to be impressed by the usual Creationist dog and pony show (which this forum seems to be lacking in); or

  3. a particular form of masochism (an example of which would be a couple of ID creationists on this forum – but no YECs exhibiting this pathology has presented as yet).

Given your track record of Sealioning on this thread, I don’t think that anybody would bother.

When we get further evidence that you’re wrong, you’ll simply conveniently forget that it was brought to your attention, gloss over it, and/or quibble over details, and then carry on as though nothing happened.

2 Likes
4

I predict you won’t solve the heat problem, and thus YEC will remain physically impossible and require arbitrary non-biblical miracles in the next 20 years.

9 Likes
5

I doubt it. Indeed, a number of well-known science PhDs have left various YEC ministries because, despite lots of cash coming in, the management had zero interest in funding actual research. (Of course, funding PhDs on staff to sit in an office and write website articles and for “our own peer-reviewed journal” is routine practice. But it isn’t actual scientific research using the scientific method.)

Long ago when I knew leaders of the YEC community (e.g., John Whitcomb Jr., Duane Gish), I suggested to them potential funding sources (e.g., Christian businessmen with deep pockets and their foundations) which could have funded actual research. There was very little interest, I was told, because the Bible and “creation science” had already settled the matter—and that any incoming funds should sponsor more books and conferences. (It was basically an answer of “We already know the truth of the earth’s past. So our job is getting out that message.”)

Jeff, your post reminds me of the 1970’s when those of us in the “creation science” community were told that the defeat of “old earthism” and the Theory of Evolution was just around the corner—and even to the point that those myths of science could totally collapse “any day now.” A half century later the catchphrases and optimism remains popular with many but their actual prospects are even more dim.

This topic got me thinking back to my interest in the geology of region where I grew up. I had wanted to better understand how Noah’s Flood would have shaped the land where my ancestors had farmed for generations. Instead of finding evidence of a Noahic Flood, I was fascinated by the overwhelming evidence for the glacial molding of the land—and how it gave our farm some of the world’s deepest and richest fertile top soil. I also learned that if I could travel back in time, a glacier “ice wall” would have been visible from our farm—and it created the plateau which included that entire township.

I realized that the various glacial agres which shaped that region could not have been compressed into a few thousand years. It simply make no sense—and I soon discovered that geologists had detailed explanations but my “creation science” friends like John Whitcomb Jr. had no idea how they were formed.

Once again I come back to the overwhelming consilience of evidence. If “creation science” is true, I have to ask why God would create a world full of deceptive evidence which would confuse us as to its history.

Of course, as I’ve written in the past, as I studied Hebrew exegesis, my understandings of the Book of Genesis were radically altered, especially as I realized that the Hebrew word ERETZ was much closer to our ideas of “the land” or “the ground” than on “planet earth.” So when the Biblical text refers to “the heavens and the earth”, it is much closer to the idea of “everything in the sky and everything below” than “what astronomers study and planet earth.” This has obvious implications for the assumption of a global flood interpretation.

7 Likes
6

With respect to the Tappeats SS in the Grand Canyon, I posted some of my own photos and comments in this earlier post. Andrew Snelling's Grand Canyon rock study - #25 by Mr_Wilford.
I’ve spent some time in the Canyon, and am happy to discuss the Tappeats’ folds or any other related tectonics.

1 Like
7

RonSewell

The most recent of Gallop’s periodic poll on origins was summer of last year.

Majority Still Credits God for Humankind, but Not Creationism

The percentage of respondents who held that humans were created in their present forms was at a historic low at 37%, having slipped from the peak of 47%.

I’ve read that predictions are hard, especially about the future. Boring predictions are simple extrapolations from present trends; interesting predictions involve discontinuities. As I am nothing if not boring, I will predict that the proportion of people holding to creationism will continue to diminish, with more fervent reactionary entrenchment on the part of the siloed creationist community. This is due to mixed forces already long in play, most especially access to information on the internet, which serves to advance and familiarize science on one hand, and on the other the very low barrier to setting up websites in the service of pseudoscience. Over the long haul, the former is more compelling to more people.

4 Likes
8

My prediction, based on extrapolating from past results: YEC will continue to recycle the same PRATTs it always has, and @jeffb will never present any of the copious evidence he claims exists.

11 Likes
9

I thought the articles by Mitchell and Tillman were very nice on their own. Apparently Snelling knows about them and only handwaved their analysis as “unconvincing”, without giving specifics.

10

Skimming that thread, I found:

I have to ask, in the four years since Snelling published that paper, has he published any of this “Future Work”, that might actually (unlike his original paper) attempt to provide evidence for YEC?

2 Likes
11

“This will require scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging of selected samples to closely examine the cement crystals which would show evidence of brittle fracturing and healing if the folding occurred after lithification, but would be still pristine if cementation occurred after soft-sediment deformation and before lithification.”

Using oriented samples (eg, bedding planes, fold limb geometry, etc) and a universal stage, we can determine the tectonic history of individual mineral grains.
Deformation of solid rocks will tend to align grain axes along various xyz strain axes. In soft material, the grain orientations will be random.

1 Like