Young Earth Musings

[gardengreen82]

Hi all! I’ve been lurking for a few weeks and decided to join. I used to be a fundy (though my family wasn’t, I was drawn in by a cult-like youth group) and in the process of coming out of that over the last decade, I’ve held about every position on creationism/evolution there is. Here’s how I understood them:

YEC- someone who believed this would believe the earth was 6000 years old and creation took 6 literal 24 hour days. Humans, plants, and animals were all created looking pretty much exactly the way they look now (though they may allow for some variation over time like changes in human skin tone or intentional physical changes like when people create new breeds of dogs). Adam and Eve’s children married their siblings, and if there were any genetic mutations that resulted they were probably limited to things that would reduce the human life span from hundreds and hundreds of years to what exists today. People believed this in the premodern period, it fell out of favor with the enlightenment and the birth of modern science (even among religious people), and has experienced a resurgence in the 20th century.** One of the defining features of this idea, in my mind, is that they hang a lot of their unrelated theology on it. I had someone once tell me I couldn’t believe that Jesus was the savior unless I believed in YEC. Its most ardent supporters almost fetishize it and read it into scripture throughout the Bible, not just Genesis. To them, if you don’t believe in YEC, then you are completely groundless in your faith- you must not believe that the bible is right about anything at all, you must not believe in a good and personal God, or that sin is real etc. etc.

Old Earth Creationism- This is a view that was more popular in the 19th and early 20th century, and accompanied the rise of geology as a discipline as religious people at the time thought there must be a way to harmonize science with a (not totally literal) interpretation of genesis. Supporters of this theory think that each “day†was more of a phase of creation that could have taken an unknown period of time- up to millions of years. At the end of each “age†there were bursts of creation, and they usually believe that these bursts happened in the order that the days of Genesis are described (so first plants, then sea creatures, than land animals, etc.) They also tend to believe that human creation was separate from everything else, so the world may have taken millions of years to form, but God plopped Adam and Eve down on it a few thousand years ago.

Intelligent Design- This is a late 20th century invention that tries to take some elements of evolution and mash them up with some elements of creationism. They generally believe in an old earth and in small types of evolution (mostly cosmetic changes) but think that God must have intervened to specially create really complicated developments (their favorite example is the eye). The key point in this theory is that they believe the evidence of God’s intervention is observable to humans in the form of gaps in the fossil record (so there should be immediate jumps from things with no eyes to things with eyes but no intermediary steps, thus a person could conclude that the eye appeared in a single generation due to God’s intervention).

Theistic Evolution- This is not the same as Intelligent Design. While Intelligent Design says you can see evidence of God’s intervention in the fossil record, people who believe in Theistic Evolution don’t . Basically they believe that evolution makes no claims about the existence or non existence of God. People who believe in Theistic Evolution say that scientists have accurately described the way in which organisms adapted in increasingly complex ways to their environment via survival of the fittest. They believe that God was somehow behind that process, but that in terms of observation, the process appears exactly the same. Sort of like how some people may believe they were fated to be with their spouse, but an outside observer would see the same events- two people meeting and falling in love- and would not be able to discern if there were a force called “fate†involved or not. Some people who believe in Theistic Evolution believe in a more directly involved God who fated this fish to mate with that fish to produce a certain beneficial mutation, while others think God set up the process of evolution to work according to certain principles and let it go from there (like if you set up dominos and knock over one, there is no need to go through and knock over each individual domino after that, they will fall on their own.)

**These generalizations are all referencing western Protestantism. I am not familiar with how Roman Catholics or Eastern Christians understood creation throughout their histories.

Sorry for the super long post, this stuff is very interesting to me, especially the way in which people approach these views with almost no sense of historical context. One of the things that makes me craziest when dealing with fundamentalists is the way in which they act like they are the only True Christians â„¢ but in reality most of their strange beliefs are less than a hundred years old.

[JuJuBee]

Somewhat off topic, but what do fundies think about all the other planets and massive objects in the universe? Like did God randomly decide to make millions (billions?) of other planets but only populate one with intelligent beings? Or do they believe there could be life on other planets? Wouldn't that contradict the Adam and Eve story, though? Hm.

[Fundiefoodie]

Thanks for the links, crassy! I guess I don't have too much of a problem at this point with saying that the world could have evolved as suggested in the videos, but I still wonder what hypothesis exist for the origin of everything, like where did the earth come from, and where did the comets come from that caused the reaction that created amino acids?

Gardengreen pretty much hits everything. I don't know why I'm responding again, really. Yes, a YE creationist would say that God created the world in 6 literal days, and everything was created fully formed. I've also heard that as an explanation for why the earth "appears" old; that just as God created "adult" people and "adult" animals, he also created an "adult" world.

Also, as far as JuJu Bee's question about planets, etc. - in my experience, creationists haven't seen planets as causing a problem in their stream of logic (which is pretty much how I understand young earth creationism to be - a process based on a logical framework with certain assumptions as opposed to a provable scientific hypothesis). Reasons for other planets could be numerous - probably most creationists would say God created the planets to display His glory and splendor. An infinite God would certainly be capable of creating a huge universe if He wanted to. I believe C.S. Lewis believed something along the lines of Intelligent Design, and in his space trilogy described (fanciful) worlds on the other planets in our solar system that had their own populations and separate systems of morality; in other words, the "fall" was limited only to our planet - the people on Venus had their own story being written, one that didn't include a fall.

My mom was taught evolution and was not a Christian growing up. She said what made her become a Christian was actually studying biology in her secular college. To see the complexity of life made her conclude that their must be a God. I have to say, as I've dealt with doubts in my faith and bursts of agnosticism, what keeps bringing me back to God is in part, that same thing; everything works so perfectly, there must be a higher power. Perhaps everything is so beautifully complex and coordinated because it evolved; perhaps it was all created in a spoken word. Either way, I think there must have been something higher at work behind it all.

[treemom]

It's based on a mixture of theology and pseudo-science. The world was created perfectly, so Adam and Eve had no genetic problems and there was no reason their children couldn't reproduce together, but once sin entered the world everything began to degrade. They use the second law of thermodynamics to support this.

(And actually, even now the offspring of siblings will probably be just fine. Also, oddly, the healthiest offspring are those of 2nd or 3rd cousins.)

But that doesn't make genetic possibilities more varied.

[treemom]

The idea that our dna was "perfect" before the flood has been trotted out quite a bit. After the flood the radiation levels on earth changed and our dna began to degrade and modify and then the bad genes started happening. If you notice in the Bible the lifespans of people begin to decline after the flood. This is purported as evidence of this hypothesis.

Yes, but we only had 23 chromosomes so it couldn't be anymore varied than now.

[Dangerous Pony]

The idea that our DNA was originally "perfect" is so strange - what does that mean? I get that if there had been no Fall then snakes would have legs, childbirth wouldn't hurt, and nobody would have to work for a living, but does this mean that Adam and Eve would have been sort of opposite-gendered clones? I hadn't heard that one before; it's even weirder than putting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

(also, hi everyone, I've been lurking since forever)

[Rachel333]

But that doesn't make genetic possibilities more varied.

I don't think she meant varied, exactly. I've never heard that before, anyway. It's just that YECs believe that there weren't the same problems that sometimes occur today when relatives reproduce.

The idea that our DNA was originally "perfect" is so strange - what does that mean? I get that if there had been no Fall then snakes would have legs, childbirth wouldn't hurt, and nobody would have to work for a living, but does this mean that Adam and Eve would have been sort of opposite-gendered clones? I hadn't heard that one before; it's even weirder than putting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

(also, hi everyone, I've been lurking since forever)

Welcome!

By "perfect" they mean that there were no genetic diseases or things like that, and that people lived longer. I don't know that you would have to believe that Adam and Eve were clones, though I suppose the story of her being made from his rib would suggest that. I hadn't thought about it before.

I suppose if two clones reproduced, their offspring wouldn't be clones of their parents due to recombination and such. If they kept reproducing their descendants would be more and more genetically diverse. 6000 years seems like an awfully short time for that to happen, though.

[Lady Di 62]

Thanks for your replies. I haven' t had a chance to read page 2 yet b/c I need to head for bed - been up for 24hrs. I'll read and digest when I can comprehend upon awakening.

I too am confused by the DNA being "pure" during Adam and Eve. If you kept inbreeding b/t family members or even after Noah you wouldn't have a decent genetic pool after several generation. I remember reading one needs at least 25 mating couples (50 people) for a good gene pool start and they would probably need to have nonmonogamous relationships at that. Can't remember where I read this.

I did type a report once for a perinatologist about two first cousins marrying. The risk of genetic defect was not significantly more than two unrelated persons, but that was a one-time thing - i.e., if their kids married within the family blood line problems would then ensue.

[QAF_Rocks]

I still consider myself a creationist since I can accept the existence of God, but while still officially holding a YE position, I will readily admit that I wasn't there to see the whole thing happen and God could also have formed the world through evolution.

I often see the bolded part mentioned as a criticism of evolution, as if it's some sort of "gotcha" that scientists weren't there to see the whole thing happen. But neither were the people who wrote down the biblical creation story. They wrote down an oral history, a story they had been told since they were children, that had been passed down to them and that they believed to be true. Nothing special or magical about it, from my perspective. Just because people wrote down ancient stories doesn't mean the stories were true. In fact, it would seem rather blatantly obvious at this point in history that they were not true.

[emmiedahl]

My opinion is based on the book Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. It's extremely complex, and I didn't understand everything, but I understood the gist. It's very interesting.

Just to add, it says "day" in the English translation, but the Hebrew word can refer to several different periods of time.

[snarkbillie]

Yes, but we only had 23 chromosomes so it couldn't be anymore varied than now.

You're right. Creation science is not science. I'm just parroting back what I was told in fundie-land growing up. I don't subscribe to it.

[Sax Russell]

I'm seeing some people delurking in this thread, so I figure I'll delurk too... this is a really fascinating forum, I'm learning a lot of things.

So I've got two questions. The YEC folks believe that humanity was created 6000 or so years ago. (This begs the question of what's wrong with carbon-14 dating and the folks from Lake Mungo, but let's leave that aside...) Folks in this thread say that YEC people believe that creation was six 24-hour days.

1. When do YEC folks believe that the Solar System was created? If 6000 years ago, how do they deal with the problem of dating rocks using uranium (and other very long-lived) isotopes?

2. When do YEC folks believe that the universe was created? If 6000 years ago, how do they deal with the problem of the speed of light? The speed of light can be measured. We can see the Andromeda galaxy and find its distance using Cepheid variables and other standard candles. When we see Andromeda, we travel back in time about 2.5 million years. We can find (or approximate) the distance to other galaxies in the Local Group, the M83/Centaurus A group, the Sculptor group, the Virgo cluster, all those Abell clusters... we can travel billions of years in the past. Yes I was really interested in astronomy as a kid. Why do you ask?

I've always heard that US school should spend more time on (insert subject here). I'd fill in that blank with biology for sure, and probably chemistry and physics too. Science is important: it works.

[gardengreen82]

I'm seeing some people delurking in this thread, so I figure I'll delurk too... this is a really fascinating forum, I'm learning a lot of things.

So I've got two questions. The YEC folks believe that humanity was created 6000 or so years ago. (This begs the question of what's wrong with carbon-14 dating and the folks from Lake Mungo, but let's leave that aside...) Folks in this thread say that YEC people believe that creation was six 24-hour days.

1. When do YEC folks believe that the Solar System was created? If 6000 years ago, how do they deal with the problem of dating rocks using uranium (and other very long-lived) isotopes?

2. When do YEC folks believe that the universe was created? If 6000 years ago, how do they deal with the problem of the speed of light? The speed of light can be measured. We can see the Andromeda galaxy and find its distance using Cepheid variables and other standard candles. When we see Andromeda, we travel back in time about 2.5 million years. We can find (or approximate) the distance to other galaxies in the Local Group, the M83/Centaurus A group, the Sculptor group, the Virgo cluster, all those Abell clusters... we can travel billions of years in the past. Yes I was really interested in astronomy as a kid. Why do you ask?

I've always heard that US school should spend more time on (insert subject here). I'd fill in that blank with biology for sure, and probably chemistry and physics too. Science is important: it works.

Basically they reject any sort of science which contradicts their beliefs outright. It really doesn't matter how good or convincing the science is, if it contradicts a 6000 year old world, they assume it must be wrong.

YEC would say that the universe was created 6000 years ago, along with the earth. In fact, though the Genesis account says God created light first, the actual sun, moon, and stars are not listed until the 4th day. Back when I was a YEC, this was explained to me as 1. God himself was initially the source of all light in the universe (which the plants from day 3 would have needed) and 2. that this explained why we could see things that were many light years away- God created the earth, the star millions of light years away, and the whole beam of light between the star and the earth. So under their logic, the light we see today from any star more than 6000 light years away never actually eminated from that star, that light was created by God as a part of the initial creation.

And yes, it is the most convoluted, illogical thing ever. I agree.

[Sax Russell]

Basically they reject any sort of science which contradicts their beliefs outright. It really doesn't matter how good or convincing the science is, if it contradicts a 6000 year old world, they assume it must be wrong.

YEC would say that the universe was created 6000 years ago, along with the earth. In fact, though the Genesis account says God created light first, the actual sun, moon, and stars are not listed until the 4th day. Back when I was a YEC, this was explained to me as 1. God himself was initially the source of all light in the universe (which the plants from day 3 would have needed) and 2. that this explained why we could see things that were many light years away- God created the earth, the star millions of light years away, and the whole beam of light between the star and the earth. So under their logic, the light we see today from any star more than 6000 light years away never actually eminated from that star, that light was created by God as a part of the initial creation.

And yes, it is the most convoluted, illogical thing ever. I agree.

Well, with galaxies, there are different types... You won't see giant elliptical galaxies a la M87 really far out (like billions of lightyears away) because they simply did not form particularly early in the universe. You need collisions of galaxies to create giant ellipticals and it takes time for those collisions to happen. Elliptical galaxies are mostly old stars - it takes time for star-forming regions to be exhausted. Same thing with quasars - you won't see any quasars in close-by galaxy clusters because those are hyperactive galaxies from when the universe was much younger and star formation much more common. In other words - isn't it convenient that there aren't any giant elliptical galaxies very far away? Isn't it convenient that there aren't any quasars nearby?

...well, there ain't no cure for stupid.

[Rosa]

The idea that our DNA was originally "perfect" is so strange - what does that mean? I get that if there had been no Fall then snakes would have legs, childbirth wouldn't hurt, and nobody would have to work for a living, but does this mean that Adam and Eve would have been sort of opposite-gendered clones? I hadn't heard that one before; it's even weirder than putting dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

(also, hi everyone, I've been lurking since forever)

aren't they? Clones, I mean? If she's made out of his rib, then they'd be genetically identical except for gender.

Not that it makes any sense to try to make the story fit with genetics, since we didn't discover genes for thousands of years after the story of Adam & Eve was made up.