Internal Dispute Within the Young Earth Creationist Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ulster Fry

Puritan Board Freshman
I had heard rumours of an internal debate in the young earth creationist (YEC) world, but have now watched this video outlining the debate and why it is occurring. Basically Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (AiG) have released a series of articles attacking other YECs as being young earth evolutionists (YEE). The attached video is an interview with a very thoughtful and serious YEC denouncing Ham and AiG's divisive tactics. To me, this is a good example of why it is important to be epistemically humble and willing to admit when the opposition do have evidence on their side, even if one ultimately disagrees with them. It also reminds me of our discussions regarding textual criticisms and the dangers of trying to withhold evidence from those in the pews to supposedly protect them from confusion etc. It appears that this is exactly what AiG are doing in this instance.

Some disclaimers - I myself am not a YEC and I am also not a fan of Ken Ham for numerous reasons. This video highlights and confirms many of my suspicions. However, I greatly appreciate YECs who are honest and open about the evidence and can present good arguments for and against their own position.

Anyway, here is the video. Would be keen to hear what people think or if they are aware that this is going on.

 
Good morning,

There is no way I will be able to watch the video today as my work hours will go into after school meetings and I will not even see my family until 7 pm.

So, basically - for myself - I will not be able to watch it until Friday evening.

But coming from a YEC physics teacher and an avid reader of Answers Research, I will preface any ensuing discussion by saying that most serious YEC scientists have labored quietly suffering the fact that Ken Ham is the public face of YEC - deeply unfortunate is the fact that he is the "celebrity" YEC rep.

Even Zondervan's Counterpoints entry on the age of the earth chose to feature Ham as the YEC representative. That fact alone turned me off from even looking at that particular entry in Counterpoints.

YEC scientists have been quietly embarrassed by many of his bombastic fallacies in discussions and debates, but have largely remained silent not in small part due to Ham sponsoring the largest website to publish articles that have a decent chance of getting views.

[Not just scientists - in 2011, two homeschool conferences passed on buying Answers materials and publicly called out Ham for grouchily questioning the intelligence, integrity and salvation of other Christians who did not agree with him. (these HSCs were YEC by the way)].

And the swallowing of long overdue criticism among YEC scientists was always in the service of getting out the logical worldview of YEC that mixes empiricism and rationalism into a coherent Biblical-scientific world view.

If the video follows along these lines of tensions, then this internal dispute has been a very long time simmering on the proverbial back burner.
 
My issue with AiG is similar to my issue with theistic evolutionism; neither party adequately takes into account the effects of sin upon the earth's appearance (Romans 8:19ff).
 
Good morning,

There is no way I will be able to watch the video today as my work hours will go into after school meetings and I will not even see my family until 7 pm.

So, basically - for myself - I will not be able to watch it until Friday evening.

But coming from a YEC physics teacher and an avid reader of Answers Research, I will preface any ensuing discussion by saying that most serious YEC scientists have labored quietly suffering the fact that Ken Ham is the public face of YEC - deeply unfortunate is the fact that he is the "celebrity" YEC rep.

Even Zondervan's Counterpoints entry on the age of the earth chose to feature Ham as the YEC representative. That fact alone turned me off from even looking at that particular entry in Counterpoints.

YEC scientists have been quietly embarrassed by many of his bombastic fallacies in discussions and debates, but have largely remained silent not in small part due to Ham sponsoring the largest website to publish articles that have a decent chance of getting views.

[Not just scientists - in 2011, two homeschool conferences passed on buying Answers materials and publicly called out Ham for grouchily questioning the intelligence, integrity and salvation of other Christians who did not agree with him. (these HSCs were YEC by the way)].

And the swallowing of long overdue criticism among YEC scientists was always in the service of getting out the logical worldview of YEC that mixes empiricism and rationalism into a coherent Biblical-scientific world view.

If the video follows along these lines of tensions, then this internal dispute has been a very long time simmering on the proverbial back burner.
I’m not YEC, but I fully agree with everything above
 
My issue with AiG is similar to my issue with theistic evolutionism; neither party adequately takes into account the effects of sin upon the earth's appearance (Romans 8:19ff).
Indeed. Unfortunately, many YECs resort to concordism as well. I am YEC but, I hate to see passages ripped from their genres and context to try to explain a hypothesis.
 
Good morning,

There is no way I will be able to watch the video today as my work hours will go into after school meetings and I will not even see my family until 7 pm.

So, basically - for myself - I will not be able to watch it until Friday evening.

But coming from a YEC physics teacher and an avid reader of Answers Research, I will preface any ensuing discussion by saying that most serious YEC scientists have labored quietly suffering the fact that Ken Ham is the public face of YEC - deeply unfortunate is the fact that he is the "celebrity" YEC rep.

Even Zondervan's Counterpoints entry on the age of the earth chose to feature Ham as the YEC representative. That fact alone turned me off from even looking at that particular entry in Counterpoints.

YEC scientists have been quietly embarrassed by many of his bombastic fallacies in discussions and debates, but have largely remained silent not in small part due to Ham sponsoring the largest website to publish articles that have a decent chance of getting views.

[Not just scientists - in 2011, two homeschool conferences passed on buying Answers materials and publicly called out Ham for grouchily questioning the intelligence, integrity and salvation of other Christians who did not agree with him. (these HSCs were YEC by the way)].

And the swallowing of long overdue criticism among YEC scientists was always in the service of getting out the logical worldview of YEC that mixes empiricism and rationalism into a coherent Biblical-scientific world view.

If the video follows along these lines of tensions, then this internal dispute has been a very long time simmering on the proverbial back burner.
Yes, you are spot on I think. Ham is attacking serious YEC scientists here and accusing them of leading people astray, giving support to evolutionists, etc.

But I will say this - as a result of this video, and figures such as Dr Marcus Ross, it has actually helped the YEC cause. This is a fairly well known apologetics channel and the host wants to hear more from credible YEC in the scientific community. Dr Ross gives some names and resources in YEC science to check out (much of which is targeted by Ham and AiG by the way) and comes across very well. This is the approach YECs need to take if they want to be heard and I'm very pleased that this dialogue is happening.

It's a bit like the KJVO thing - present the evidence. Nobody wants to hear 'You're following men rather than God' over and over.
 
As a homeschooling teacher selecting curricula, my frustration has been that materials to support "creationism" focus upon refuting something else. A much stronger approach is to take as a priori: God created. Then go where careful observation, experimentation, and repeatability take you.
 
Why does Ham accuse other YEC of being evolutionists? Why would that factor if they are YEC?
I don't have time to read the AiG series, but from the video it seems that Ham and his colleagues are attacking these 'YEE' figures for basically saying that we should be honest and admit that there is some good evidence for evolution, though they also say that in some areas the data supports YEC. Many also agree with mainstream palaeontology that many dinosaurs had feathers. This is a big no-no for AiG apparently.

Basically Ham seems to be saying that they are supporting evolutionists by saying these things (being honest in other words) and leading people astray.
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed Creationism since the 1980s, what is the issue over "had features"?
I don't have time to read the AiG series, but from the video it seems that Ham and his colleagues are attacking these 'YEE' figures for basically saying that we should be honest and admit that there is some good evidence for evolution, though they also say that in some areas the data supports YEC. Many also agree with mainstream palaeontology that many dinosaurs had features. This is a big no-no for AiG apparently.

Basically Ham seems to be saying that they are supporting evolutionists by saying these things (being honest in other words) and leading people astray.
 
The Bible appears to pretty plainly teach a young earth regardless if Ham is the face or not.
Okay, that's your opinion, but this particular dispute isn't about that. Both sides in this dispute believe that the Bible teaches YEC. Probably better if we don't turn this into a typical YEC vs OEC vs evolution thread. I'm keen to hear from YECs on whether they agree or disagree with what AiG are doing here.
 
Okay, that's your opinion, but this particular dispute isn't about that. Both sides in this dispute believe that the Bible teaches YEC. Probably better if we don't turn this into a typical YEC vs OEC vs evolution thread. I'm keen to hear from YECs on whether they agree or disagree with what AiG are doing here.
I think it's far more than mere opinion. What did our Lord Jesus Christ think about Genesis according to the New Testament? Did He advocate for or against the authority and historical accuracy of the Old Testament? Do we know better than He does?

I say let God be true and every man a liar.
 
I think it's far more than mere opinion. What did our Lord Jesus Christ think about Genesis according to the New Testament? Do we know better than He does?
Look, I'm trying to show some self restraint here by not engaging with this rhetoric. Make your own thread if you want to have this debate. To be honest, I have little interest in debating YEC with other Christians here because I know how toxic it usually gets. And, to be honest, you're not exactly dispelling my concerns.
 
Request to the moderators - if this thread descends into YEC against OEC or whatever, please lock the thread. It was never my intent for this to happen. The reason I outlined that I am not YEC and not a fan of Ken Ham is just so that people know my own biases when I posted the video. I wasn't trying to set up a target to be shot at.

Furthermore, despite disagreeing with YEC, I have made it clear how impressed I was by the YEC scientist being interviewed here, as his epistemic humility and cordial approach is opening the discussion and actually leading to YEC receiving a decent platform. Many could learn from his example.
 
*Moderating* Please keep comments within the scope of the OP which engages how young earth is being engaged by its proponents. Feel free to search previous discussions regarding what the scriptures specifically teach about young earth.
 
Personally, as a YEC, 6 day literal guy, I think it's unwarranted to point fingers to other YEC guys and yell "evolutionist" over dinosaur feathers.

I could care less whether dinosaurs have feathers...?

We have mammals with wings (bats), ocean dwelling animals that give live birth (whales) as opposed to laying eggs like fish. Variation and similarity among different species doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything.
 
Personally, as a YEC, 6 day literal guy, I think it's unwarranted to point fingers to other YEC guys and yell "evolutionist" over dinosaur feathers.

I could care less whether dinosaurs have feathers...?

We have mammals with wings (bats), ocean dwelling animals that give live birth (whales) as opposed to laying eggs like fish. Variation and similarity among different species doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything.
I'm scratching my head at this, too. When I first heard that scientists were now saying T-Rex, Velociraptor, etc., had feathers, I thought it was a win for YEC. They have lots of other features that make them more like chickens than lizards (their feet, legs, arm/wings, etc.). Why not categorize them as big, scary birds?
 
What is the upper bound of the age of the Earth that is still considered YEC (i.e. 10,000 vs. 6,000 years)?
 
Hopefully this is within the scope of the original post (happy to start a new thread) but is there a good YEC critique of AiG I could read? Looking for an honest take on what they do well and dont. Or alternately, if AiG isn’t completely trustworthy, who is a good option for YEC?
 
Hopefully this is within the scope of the original post (happy to start a new thread) but is there a good YEC critique of AiG I could read? Looking for an honest take on what they do well and dont. Or alternately, if AiG isn’t completely trustworthy, who is a good option for YEC?
Dr Jason Lisle in my opinion. I do think AiG is ok though. Ham may not be the best, but I do think many of his arguments work, especially at the lay person level.
 
Hopefully this is within the scope of the original post (happy to start a new thread) but is there a good YEC critique of AiG I could read? Looking for an honest take on what they do well and dont. Or alternately, if AiG isn’t completely trustworthy, who is a good option for YEC?
Yes, I didn’t mean to stifle discussion I just didn’t want things to descend into typical YEC vs OEC etc debate, particularly as the two parties in this dispute are both YEC so it’s not relevant.

In terms of material, the video linked above mentions a podcast called ‘Let’s Talk Creation’ hosted by some of the scientists being critiqued by AiG. In terms of critiques of evolutionary theory, I like ‘Evolution News’ which is associated with the Discovery Institute (the Intelligent Design guys) but they won’t be YEC. When I was YEC I relied quite heavily on AiG so I don’t know many alternatives.
 
I am also wondering if presuppositional apologetics is involved in this dispute. Dr Ross and his colleagues seem to take it for granted that all scientists are working with the same data and they can all evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion on what best fits the data.

Ham, Lisle, and I believe AiG in general are presuppositionalists, so that could be another reason for their dispute with the ‘YEE’ scientists.

For example, with the feathers, I believe the problem here is that they are in agreement with the evolutionists on something. That’s basically it as far as I can tell, as far as what the problem is. Of course this isn’t very consistent, as Dr Ross himself points out.
 
I can't watch an hour long video on a topic like this.

So far as my general knowledge of feathers and dinosaurs and YEC, YECs in Answers in Genesis and all over the place have admitted that if they have feathers it isn't really a problem. However, their material indicates that they find the evidence for feathers to be currently unsupported by the evidence, and the main reason that certain pieces of data are interpreted in favor of feathers are due to an evolutionary framework and motivation: evolution would love to have diniosaurs with feathers because they believe it would be evidence in favor of their theory; they are wrong that it would, but it is how they think. As a result, conclusions reached by them on this matter cannot simply be trusted, but one must look into the reasoning for why they think certain evidence supports feathers or not.

Both AiG and others (creation.com) have a number of articles on feathers and dinosaurs and the evidence for/against that can be checked out.
 
@Ulster Fry, on the evolution Marcus Ross is open to— does it allow for death before the fall?
Dr Ross and those being called 'young earth evolutionists' (YEE) deny the claim that they are open to evolution any more than the aspects of evolution which AiG themselves accept. Dr Ross says in this video that all YECs believe that after the animals left the ark, the animals we have today are vastly different as they adapted to their environment etc. Both parties agree that the animals remained within their kinds, however.

The disagreement seems to lie with the fact that some YEC scientists have admitted that some scientific data is currently better supported by evolutionary theories, though they deny that that proves evolution is true. Ham and AiG has taken issue with this admission and see it as (1) leading the average creationist into doubt and (2) giving cause for the evolutionists to celebrate as YECs admit they have evidence on their side. Then there are some specific areas of agreement between evolutionists and these 'YEE' folks on things like dinosaurs having feathers, which AiG have also criticised.

So, in answer to your specific question, while they don't cover these theological issues in the video, I think Ross and those accused of YEE are in complete agreement with all the typical YEC beliefs. It wouldn't make much sense if they did believe in death before the fall as YECs honestly. From what I can gather there is total agreement on the biblical/theological issues and this is about interpreting the scientific data.
 
Hopefully this is within the scope of the original post (happy to start a new thread) but is there a good YEC critique of AiG I could read? Looking for an honest take on what they do well and dont. Or alternately, if AiG isn’t completely trustworthy, who is a good option for YEC?
Creation.com. They are a rival of AiG. I recall there being a ton of personal animosity between the Ministries and not just from Ham.
 
I can't watch an hour long video on a topic like this.

So far as my general knowledge of feathers and dinosaurs and YEC, YECs in Answers in Genesis and all over the place have admitted that if they have feathers it isn't really a problem. However, their material indicates that they find the evidence for feathers to be currently unsupported by the evidence, and the main reason that certain pieces of data are interpreted in favor of feathers are due to an evolutionary framework and motivation: evolution would love to have diniosaurs with feathers because they believe it would be evidence in favor of their theory; they are wrong that it would, but it is how they think. As a result, conclusions reached by them on this matter cannot simply be trusted, but one must look into the reasoning for why they think certain evidence supports feathers or not.

Both AiG and others (creation.com) have a number of articles on feathers and dinosaurs and the evidence for/against that can be checked out.
The video covers a lot of your comments so if you do get the chance to watch it might be helpful. Particularly the bolded section - Dr Ross completely disputes these claim, and argues why there is a very good reason to believe dinosaurs had feathers based purely on the data alone.

In general, Dr Ross, those accused of YEE, and myself as well to be honest would highly question the conjecture that there are a group of scientists deviously trying to make the data fit evolutionary theory and that this 'is how they think'. I agree that they are working within an evolutionary framework, but the point is that the data fits the theory well, which is why they are adopting it. What Dr Ross is saying is that this doesn't mean the theory is true, and there is some data that he believes is better explained by a young earth. Trying to come up with good YEC models to explain the data is a much better approach than just questioning the motives of evolutionary scientists.
 
(1 of 2)

Good morning all,

First, thank you to @Ulster Fry for sharing this. I had heard of rumblings in the distance of "YEE" - "young-earth evolutionist" and I admit I thought it was just a weird take somewhere out there that would just fizzle and die. This is obviously not true.

Second, AiG is not just mumbling under their breath here at a minor annoyance in their YEC brethren. This is a declaration of all-out war. Committing an entire section under their "EVOLUTION" category to "Young-earth Evolution"? And committing an article every Friday afternoon denouncing this as akin to heresy? And to have all but one anonymous and have Ham claim that is because it represents the position of ALL AiG researchers?

This strikes me as serious and not minor at all.

Third, to illustrate the differences between legitimate concerns re "YEEs" like Wood, Ross, Wise, etc. and outright fallacies regarding their recent papers and posts, I will try to frame this in a Q and A style so anyone can have access to the deep problems AiG is needlessly causing here:

Q. I thought YEC believes birds and dinosaurs were separate kinds and evolutionists force fit data in order to buttress their claims of long term speciation (one species evolving into other species via macro-evolution). Do "YEEs" now believe that dinosaurs had feathers?

In 2016, a field finding was released in the journal Current Biology of "the feathered tail of a non-avialan theropod preserved in mid-Cretaceous (∼99 Ma) amber from Kachin State, Myanmar [], with plumage structure that directly informs the evolutionary developmental pathway of feathers."


Quite a few of YEC scientists analyzed the finding and found significant evidence that strictly scientific methods were used. No "tampering" due to "Darwinian motives" was in sight.

Q. But AiG criticized Dr. Todd Wood for embracing the finding as a slippery slope into evolutionism. Is this true?

From Dr. Todd Wood's blog:

"Personally, I think this discovery is amazing. It is completely in line with what we already know about feathered dinosaurs, namely that they had real feathers. It also doesn't change any of my conclusions from my recent ICC paper, where my colleagues and I concluded that there were important, detectable discontinuities between dinosaurs and birds, even when examining feathered dinosaurs. In other words, there are many different created kinds (some birds, some feathered dinosaurs) that did not all evolve from a common ancestor." (Emphasis added)

Q. In the video by the OP, Dr. Marcus Ross said he thought the finding was scientifically valid. Could he be accused of leaning towards evolutionism?

Probably so given the lax standards of what constitutes as "leaven in a lump" over at AiG (see March 3 article by Ken Ham equating "YEEs" to Pharisees).

However, Dr. Ross also doubled down on YEC and special creation of all kinds when he posted on Facebook about the finding:

"So while you can make a case that the amber tail specimen belongs to (maybe) one long-tailed bird on the basis of anatomy, you can likewise make a case for any one of dozens of dinosaur genera." [Ken Ham would be red-faced in fury by this statement] ... "This is why the authors are confident in assigning it to a dinosaur somewhere within the Coelurosauria (tyrannosaurs through raptors; excluding birds in this case). Is there some evolutionary reasoning here? Yes, but most of the reasoning is comparative anatomy based on the specimens of dinosaurs and birds that we know." (Emphasis added)

Dr. Ross continues:

"... creationists (both young-Earth and old-Earth) and Intelligent Design advocates have been arguing against a dinosaur-to-bird connection for so long that sometimes we interpret the data too strongly through a lens of 'evolutionists need this to be a feathered dinosaur in order to prove dinosaurs evolved into birds'. We point out (rightly) that their objectivity can be clouded by preconceived notions. However, we've got to be careful not to do the same when evaluating the data. These little feathered vertebrae most likely belonged to a juvenile dinosaur with feathery integument. And that's ok for a young-Earth creationist like me." (Emphasis added)

Q. Is this really all over one discovery that may suggest that some dinosaurs had feathers?

Unfortunately no. There seems to be no end in sight for AiG (and ICR by the way) "calling out YEEs". Take a look at the latest article posted by AiG on "Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?" (March 10 entry in YEE section of their website).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top