It seems the YEC camp includes a range of positions, all of which would be examples of Scriptural Realism (as I imagine it): Young Cosmos Creation (e.g. @J.E.S, @PDPrice, and Ken Ham) to Young Life Creation (e.g. @r_speir and @stcordova ).
Is there an intermediary position between these two views: Young Globe Creation?
Here, the Cosmos would be old, but the planet, solar system, or galaxy would have been created very recently.
I believe on a personal level the Universe is Young, but I don’t think it is defensible yet on empiriclal and theoretical grounds.
When I teach ID/Creation or write papers, I provide pedagogical models. Pedagogical models exist in physics such as the “particle in a box” model which really doesn’t have many, if any actual exact analogs in the real world.
I’ll usually say even in church circles,
"I have my personal beliefs that the universe is young, but at this time we don’t have a good theoretical or empirical case and for the time being, there are powerful data points for an Old Universe. One of the reasons I developed that belief is that the trend of data has been toward a slow overturning of Old evolved Solar System to a created Young Solar system, and
by way of extrapolation, I think this trend will continue. That said, I think a defensible pedagogical models (models for the sake of argument) are assuming Universal Common Ancestry, and then another model assuming an Old Earth but a young fossil record. In mathematics, we use something known as proof-by-contradiction, and by assuming theIargument we wish to disprove we sometimes come closer to the truth.
That is why prefer to argue from pedagogical models and empirical models than what some theologian claims about history. I would think an archaeologist and scientist and historian could argue authoritatively vs. some preacher. That’s not a nice thing to say, but preachers and some of their hypocrisy has been really offensive to me, and it’s left a permanent scar. I’d have had more regard for them if they actually could cite facts for their beliefs than just preaching out of the Bible since even I (and hucksters like Jim Bakker and apostates like Josh Harris) could do that.
Could there be a briefer summing up of an antiscientific attitude than that?
Pot calling the kettle black?
I hear the same thing from Abiogenesis advocates and evolutionary biologists in so many words, but the difference is the trend is favorable toward the belief I hold. One can’t say that for Abiogenesis theory nor evolutionary theory.
Sorry, no.
Sorry, no.
I disagree, but in any Merry Christmas.
And a Merry Christmas to you. We could discuss the reasons why you’re wrong. But we’ve been doing that on and off for a long time now, if you could only remember.
There is no abiogenesis theory. There are hypotheses that are testable and have been tested. Evolutionary theory is tested all the time. That’s why we call it a theory.
How so?