It’s not just the stereotyped Bible Belt rednecks who are young-earthers; many of my friends in the Deep North (small-town southwestern Ontario) were YEC. Alberta is supposed to be Texas North or whatever, so I’m sure it’s got its share too.
I, for one, think the Earth was created 13,383,816 years ago.
The following are the answers I received at bible study to the various objections I raised regarding YEC:
“We only know at what rate compounds decay now. It was different thousands of years ago.”
“Incorrect interpretaion of data.”
or (and I am not lying here)
“Athiest conspiracy.”
“Easily explained by the flood account in Genesis.”
“There are no interspecies fossils.”
and
“There is nothing that has ever been close to showing that speciation occurs or has ever occurred.”
and
“All dinosaur skeletons can be made using bones from horses or cows.”
Or supernovae as SentientMeat has pointed out.
“The speed of light is different at other areas of the universe.”
“God jumped started things by allowing light to travel faster than c for a time.”
Can I join?
Stranger
Well, it’s only old from a certain point of view…Compared to the age of the galaxy, it’s pretty newish.
My parents are YEC. I have to very careful when talking to them. Some topics are best avoided, in the interest of familial peace. Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure they think I’m going to hell. Alas.
I really liked that one. If that were true, if there was an atheist conspiracy that spanned the centuries, fabricating data in order to control what people think, it would rival the Church. I think they have a patent on that.
That’s a good point. I wouldn’t call myself a general-relativist, though I beleive in General Relativity. I’m not a quantum-mechaniticist, though I believe in quantum mechnanics. I’m not a nebularist because I believe the Solar System formed from a nebula, nor a Giant-Impactist because I believe that the Moon formed in a giant impact.
Someone here (Possibly Diogenes? I don’t remember.) once said that we shouldn’t use the label “Creationists,” we should refer to them as evolution deniers. I’m usually a member of the camp that calls people what they want to be called, but then again . . . It would surely cut down on the wags who pop up to say, “I’m a Creationist! I believe that God created the Universe! In the BIG BANG!”
This is very important to remember.
They are everywhere. The span all levels of education and income. Some even use some aspect of science everyday in the work or life. However whenever there is a discrepancy between science and The Bible, for them the Bible is always right. It has to be confronted. I think a lot of people buy into it, because in places like the Bible Belt there aren’t enough people yelling “Bullshit”
This aspect offends me the most. The pick & choose Chinese menu approach to science. I’ll take the physics, but can you leave out the carbon dating?
Sometimes I wonder if we lucked out that the Old Testament wasn’t more specific. What would the consequences have been if the Bible said, “The Lord made the Earth with the diameter the size of his hand, and the circumference exactly three of his hands”? Would Literalist insist that Pi is three?
Now that we;ve pretty well established that Creationists are being silly and the scientific evidence is pretty conclusive, we can theoreticaly give them one thing:
They could be arguing that the universe was, in fact, created 6,000 years ago and God simply felt that a good history was a nice foundation. Of course, this sort of works anyway. I jappen to believe that creation is an ongoing process and that God draws the universe all over again every instant. He’s a very quick painter, so you don’t notice. 
There is another possibility, of course. God created the universe with an appearence of age.
When Adam was created, he wasn’t created as an infant, he was created as a full-grown man. If you saw Adam on Day 1, you would say to yourself, “well, the man must be at least 20 years old.” But, in reality, he was but a day old. God created him with the appearence of age.
Likewise, God could have (I’m not saying He did) created the Grand Canyon with the layers it shows, created stars with light already “in progress” toward earth and with an entire geologic, bioligic and ecologic history already in progress.
Zev Steinhardt
Intersting that you say this. Every day Orthodox Jews (as part of the prayers) state: “He (God) renews everyday the work of Creation as it states 'To Him who makes (in the present tense) great luminaries, His kindness endures forever.” (Psalms 136:7)
Zev Steinhardt
If you go down that road, you could just as well argue that God created the universe with all its appearance of age yesterday at 11.37 am, and he created you with all your apparent memories at the same time. Both statements are worthless because they can’t be disproved.
But why would He? The false age theory is, at best, silly and, at worst, a lie and I prefer my Supreme Being being better than that. God ain’t Q from Star Trek.
The black helicopter will be dropping off your anti-rapture helmet and irony meter. (We know where you live.) Welcome to the EAC
Voyager
Evil Atheist Conspiracy (which doesn’t exist, of course.)
Silicon Valley Division
I’m from Houston, Texas. (Soon I’ll have to stop saying that… I recently moved to Eastern Washington.)
I’ve never really encountered “these people” in texas. I started finding them all over the place when I moved here though. I’ve also been encountered by many Mormons trying to convert me… probably because I’m somewhat close to Utah.
BTW, I said millions, but I’m really thinking about 4.5 billion years ago or so.
Quick question: Has anyone here read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins? I first heard of this book when reading an interview of Douglas Adams in The Salmon of Doubt. The name sounded familiar, and sure enough Richard Dawkins was the meme guy I read about on the straight dope.
Anyway, School does a pisspoor job of teaching evolution, and I think this book does a terrific job teaching it. Not only is it easy, fun, and interesting to read, but Richard Dawkins also answers specific criticisms head on. If anyone knows of a better or just as good account of evolution let me know. I’m also interested in reading his other book, The Selfish Gene, but that’ll be when I don’t have to worry about my school reading.
FINALLY, I find that most YEC are so literal they tend to believe that the Book in fact is the word of God, literally. You can tell them it was written by man, but they’ll say that those men were told what to write by God. You can even tell them that the words of Jesus were chosen as “true” by popular vote… and they’ll say God guided them. Wouldn’t the votes be unanimous then? Anyway… For “these people,” I absolutely LOVE to point out what I’ve learned from the Ark of the Covenant articles on the straight dope. I ask how they can justify one part of the bible that says “A” and another that says “Not A” as non-contradictory. Then they mutter some nonsense about “faith.”
Finally #2, the answer I most here from Christians about the first 2 chapters being different creation stories is that they are just 2 different interpretations of the same thing.
Meh.
Art
here, hear… it’s all the same really… and Texas really should be capitalized… again, meh.
I am a former Young-Earther, and can offer what perspective I have.
I was raised to believe that the Bible (and my church’s interpretation of it) is the only reliable source of truth. I was also taught to regard my science teachers with a certain amount of skepticism, as they were likely to teach me untrue things. I didn’t do well in science classes, since I saw no real reason to study it, so I wasn’t well prepared to rebut what I was taught in church.
I learned almost the opposite of what I now think. People who believe in evolution want very badly to have a worldview that leaves out God, so they find, skew, or, when necessary, invent evidence to support that view.
I heard a lot of the arguments y’all are chuckling at, but they seemed plausible to someone with little science knowledge and no one seriously promoting evolution around me.
Carbon dating has given false dates before, so it cannot be relied upon.
‘Missing link’ fossils have been proven, from time to time, to be falsified or erroneous, so no fossil evidence is reliable.
All of the evidence in favor of evolution can be easily explained by the creation story.
Evolution is a soul-killing, depressing worldview.
There are scientists who believe in creation.
With no science teachers willing to tackle the subject, and with lots of deacons enthusiastically teaching books full of evidence for creation, it seemed more plausible.
It wasn’t until after I started questioning the church about thing I knew something about (like the abilities and gifts of women) that I started reading about evolution, and only then did I learn about the overwhelming evidence supporting it, and also that it is not bleak and depressing but an astounding and complex process, still ongoing, that I am a part of.
If you don’t know much about science, and everyone you respect teaches you creation as truth, it seems very probable.
It is unfortunate that not only is this dogma among the Creationist folk, but it’s also the standard argument against science among a lot of non-technical intellectuals. Dawkins takes this idea head-on in Unweaving The Rainbow and does a pretty good job of arguing that a better understanding of science and the natural world offers more opportunities for wonder and delight. Understanding how a rainbow is created in no way diminishes the beauty of it, any more than understanding how to write a screenplay makes Rear Window any less of a great movie. On the other hand, understanding how badly, hacked together stories are made makes you more appreciative of good films.
Stranger
The fact that our bodies are purely vehicles for replicating genetic information is kind of bleak, sure. But unfortunately that has no basis for whether it’s true or not.
Carbon dating has given false dates before, so it cannot be relied upon.
Neither can the Catholic church it seems…
‘Missing link’ fossils have been proven, from time to time, to be falsified or erroneous, so no fossil evidence is reliable
I’ve had math textbooks with errors in them… so no mathematics is reliable?
All of the evidence in favor of evolution can be easily explained by the creation story
All of the evidence in favor of evolution can be easily explained by magic too…
Evolution is a soul-killing, depressing worldview
It’s pretty fascinating to me.
There are scientists who believe in creation
But can they prove it using the scientific method?
I can see where you coming from… but when you reach a certain age, or you’ve grown up a certain amount you begin to feel that you are allowed to question things that you’ve always known to be “true.” I don’t know whether some people are simply scared to question these things, or if they present the attitude, “I’m saved, and if there is some other truth out there I’d rather not know about it.”
Art
That’s a strike in favour of science: peer review and ruthless scrutiny rather than blind acceptance and ex cathedra pronouncements. If I discover a fossil of what seems to be an unknown early hominid in East Africa, I’d better be damned sure of my findings before I publish in Nature - reputation means nothing, I can’t say “it must be true because I’m the famous Case Sensitive” - if I’m wrong, I’m going to get torn a new one.
Perhaps I am genuinely mistaken - scientists have just as big egos as everyone else, and in my eagerness to publish and have Australopithecus sensitivii make my name, I overlook other fossil evidence which points in another direction: A. sensitivii may just turn out to be another A. casiensis, albeit a slightly larger one. The point is that regardless of who makes the claim, if it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, out it goes, and science as a whole progresses.