Internal Dispute Within the Young Earth Creationist Movement

[No Other Name]

I used the term simply because that’s what (I thought) was used in this thread. I actually don’t know precisely what it means, or if it even has only one definition. I just know I don’t believe it, since I disavow evolution altogether. (What is called “microevolution” is, in my opinion, not helpfully named and thus only muddies the waters.)

Your clarification leaves me further confused. And frankly concerned that within lies the blueprint for a "hard-nose" rising within YEC against certain facets of responsible science.

You disavow change altogether? You disavow transitions through adaptations to an environment altogether? You disavow the stickleback fish or peppered moth or any other demonstrable transitions within kinds?

As to YEE - it seems neither does Ken Ham really know precisely what it means, or if the definition can be solely attributed to YEC that "don’t comport with Scripture or are unnecessarily accommodating of evolutionary ideas are causing problems within the church, confusing the people in the pews" when he himself is frequently "guilty" of the same thing.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Your clarification leaves me further confused. And frankly concerned that within lies the blueprint for a "hard-nose" rising within YEC against certain facets of responsible science.

You disavow change altogether? You disavow transitions through adaptations to an environment altogether? You disavow the stickleback fish or peppered moth or any other demonstrable

As to YEE - it seems neither does Ken Ham really know precisely what it means, or if the definition can be solely attributed to YEC that "don’t comport with Scripture or are unnecessarily accommodating of evolutionary ideas are causing problems within the church, confusing the people in the pews" when he himself is frequently "guilty" of the same thing.

I don't believe he said change, but evolution. With the brackets he further clarifies the use of the term muddies the water. I would agree with this. I think it would be best to use the term you did, "adaptation". There is some change within a kind, such is what adaptation is, but there is never one kind becoming another kind altogether, which is almost always what the term evolution means.

 

[Taylor]

You disavow change altogether?

This is very obviously not what I said.

 

[Ulster Fry]

There is some change within a kind, such is what adaptation is, but there is never one kind becoming another kind altogether

This is exactly what those being accused of YEE say, so I would like to know why the pejorative is being used in the first place and what people mean by it. For Ken Ham and AiG it seems that it means anyone who agrees with anything an evolutionist might say (such as dinosaurs having feathers).

Have those using the term YEE watched the video yet? Genuine question. It helps clarify things.

I should also add that @Reformed Covenanter is right about single issue ministries being a problem. At the end of the day, there's reputations and potential financial repercussions on the line if your chosen apologetics method, or scientific methodology, or whatever else you've built an entire business around, were shown to be wrong. I think such ministries can then become very defensive and start lashing out if they feel threatened. It's a bad idea, as Daniel said.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't want to utterly derail the thread, but I believe dinosaurs were war machines bred by the Nephilim for battle.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't want to utterly derail the thread, but I believe dinosaurs were war machines bred by the Nephilim for battle.

You may not be trying to be funny (the laugh-emoji is mine).
This is the coolest notion, ever. But the Nephilim were not what you think.
I don't think its the best idea (mine, of course), but I'm too cowardly to tell you or anyone about it.

 

[RamistThomist]

You may not be trying to be funny (the laugh-emoji is mine).
This is the coolest notion, ever. But the Nephilim were not what you think.
I don't think its the best idea (mine, of course), but I'm too cowardly to tell you or anyone about it.

We all have our own exegesis of the Nephilim, but I do like the dinosaur as living tank idea. This way one can have a young earth without trying to explain the existence of dinosaurs.

 

[No Other Name]

There is some change within a kind, such is what adaptation is, but there is never one kind becoming another kind altogether, which is almost always what the term evolution means.

While I agree with the first part, I cannot follow along the lines of the last - "evolution" does not "almost always" mean one kind becoming another kind altogether. Please try to remember while that may be factually true in YEC literature, it is rarely the case in scientific literature. One may bemoan the number of definitions qualified for "evolution" as used in standard biological texts (even astronomical texts such as lifespans of stars described as "evolution"), that is fair to question.

It is another thing altogether for one YEC to lean into those wide range of definitions (no matter what purpose one imagines for there being) and try to create conflict unnecessarily.

 

[No Other Name]

This is very obviously not what I said.

You just ignored the other questions that sprang from there including transitions and adaptations indicating I imagine you do NOT disavow change, but am uncertain why you disavow "microevolution" as a term despite other scientists affirming the concept?

You have been decidedly the opposite of "obvious" in any of your posts here. And without further clarification, you are becoming less clear with each successive post.

 

[Taylor]

You just ignored the other questions…

Yes, because they were based on a straw man due to your changing my words.

…you disavow "microevolution" as a term despite other scientists affirming the concept?

Why should I care what scientists say or do not say? “Science” cannot even tell the difference between boys and girls.

You have been decidedly the opposite of "obvious" in any of your posts here.

Okay. I disagree.

 

[No Other Name]

Yes, because they were based on a straw man due to your changing my words.


Why should I care what scientists say or do not say? “Science” cannot even tell the difference between boys and girls.


Okay. I disagree.

I am trying to be as clear as I can and I own that I may have failed, but I was not creating a straw man - rather trying to illustrate that "change" and "evolution" are treated as synonyms with "adaptation" and "transitions" within kinds in science (particularly in popular secular literature used for means of explanation).

In the context of your post, it seems you do not like the different meanings of "evolution" that include change (which is fair) but then are using your dislike of that nomenclature to not only embrace the idea "YEEs" are real, but are just as guilty of "muddying the waters" as secular scientists - while seemingly unaware AiG does the same thing. Or you are aware of that and you meant something different? Again, your short replies are not particularly helpful or I need more caffeine.

Speaking of straw men, science has no issue between sex chromosomes and the role of gender in reproduction and basic living behaviors and patterns within natural environments.

None whatsoever.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why should I care what scientists say or do not say? “Science” cannot even tell the difference between boys and girls.

That might be a strawman. Not all scientists are like that, nor does that accurately represent what we are saying on this thread.

 

[No Other Name]

I don't want to utterly derail the thread, but I believe dinosaurs were war machines bred by the Nephilim for battle.

Please stop posting on this thread. And write this book, thanks.

 

[Taylor]

I am trying to be as clear as I can and I own that I may have failed, but I was not creating a straw man…

You literally changed my words.

In the context of your post, it seems you do not like that (which is fair) but then are using your dislike of that nomenclature to not only embrace the idea "YEEs" are real, but are just as guilty of "muddying the waters" as secular scientists - while seemingly unaware AiG does the same thing.

Frankly, I don’t care what “YEEs” or AiG folks say. I wasn’t even aware of the former until this thread, and I have never once used the latter’s material. All I was intending to say is that I disavow evolution as it is incompatible with Scripture.

Not all scientists are like that.

I never said that.

 

[Ulster Fry]

If the church decides to become anti-science or anti-intellectual because of the abuse caused by 'The Science' authoritarians or the state of the modern academies, it will be disastrous. I'm not naive - as @Reformed Covenanter can verify, I'm one of the only people who was against the tyranny of covid lockdowns and the bunk scientific modelling used to justify it from the very beginning, and received much abuse for my (now entirely justified) position. I'm well aware that people are misusing science for wicked reasons.

But I also know plenty of Christians who take things to the opposite extreme and end up embarrassing themselves by thinking we therefore can't listen to anything that the scientists or academics have to say. Science itself as a practice is obviously a good thing. Like anything, it can be abused.

 

[RamistThomist]

I never said that.

Then it is not clear why you said scientists or science can't tell boys from girls.

 

[No Other Name]

You literally changed my words.

I'll try one more time to explain that I was not changing your words with those questions.

I was taking your words " I disavow evolution altogether. (What is called “microevolution” is, in my opinion, not helpfully named and thus only muddies the waters.)" and my follow-up questions were not meant to be YOUR words parroted back, but a series of rhetorical questions to demonstrate the levels of similar uses for "evolution" and mostly to pry open clarification as to what you would use for "microevolution" and why it relates to "YEE" discussion.

All I was intending to say is that I disavow evolution as it is incompatible with Scripture.

"Microevolution" is not incompatible with Scripture. It is simply synonymous with change and transitions within kinds.

Can some use it to suggest that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes? They can and they do. Yet you cannot deny the definition exists and is used. It cannot be avoided.

The waters are muddied. And it does require prayer and work to arrive at the best way moving forward regarding terms, methods, data collection, responsible analysis, all held to the standard of God's truth.

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[No Other Name]

"Microevolution" is not incompatible with Scripture.

@Taylor what I think is happening is that you do not trust science to define terms, since some (not all) have abandoned their previously responsible meanings for utter madness and foolishness.

The difference is that for gender, the radicals are trying to morph these terms into a meaning that is *observably* not truthful, anti-Biblical and subversive. Science itself disproves their "definitions".

"Microevolution" - historic and current meanings - cannot be considered along those same lines or in the same category. It is not anti-Biblical. It does relate to an observable truth in reality. Please consider these things. You do not have to ultimately agree, but please consider.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Taylor]

I'll try one more time to explain that I was not changing your words with those questions.

I was taking your words " I disavow evolution altogether. (What is called “microevolution” is, in my opinion, not helpfully named and thus only muddies the waters.)" and my follow-up questions were not meant to be YOUR words parroted back, but a series of rhetorical questions to demonstrate the levels of similar uses for "evolution" and mostly to pry open clarification as to what you would use for "microevolution" and why it relates to "YEE" discussion.

I said I disavow “evolution,” and you asked if I disavowed “change.” This is clearly a change of words. Whether or not you intended to straw man me, I do not know. But that you changed my wording is indisputable.

"Microevolution" is not incompatible with Scripture. It is simply synonymous with change and transitions within kinds.

Can some use it to suggest that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes? They can and they do. Yet you cannot deny the definition exists and is used. It cannot be avoided.

Then why not just say “change” or “adaptation”? I grant both of these realities. Why insist on using a loaded term? The very fact we are having this conversation convinces me all the more that the term muddies the waters.

 

[No Other Name]

Whether or not you intended to straw man me, I do not know. But that you changed my wording is indisputable.

But I wasn't quoting you. I was asking follow-ups to illustrate similarities with "change" (which I imagined you acknowledge) and "microevolution" and hoping you would quote my queries with further clarification. Do you imagine you know my intent when I wrote those questions? How is your interpretation of what I meant "indisputable"?

Then why not just say “change” or “adaptation”?

They do.

EDIT: Not all "changes" equate to a full "adaptation" to the environment. I almost forgot to recognize that here.

I grant both of these realities.

That's great. So why is the water between us muddied then? Seems we agree on this.

Why insist on using a loaded term?

Why insist on "loading the term" needlessly?

The very fact we are having this conversation just convinces me that the term muddies the waters.

I doubt this. If you agree with my replies, then no water is in fact muddied. If you disagree with my replies, then I am very curious as to why you insist on YEC science ignoring the fact that "change" and "evolution" are synonyms used in every science textbook, rather than just using this energy for discussion to say that "change within kinds" does not prove "change from kind to kind"? And that any scientist making that claim needs to prove it and it has not been proven yet. Honestly asking here.

PS - In a perfect world, "evolution" would only mean "microevolution" and the prefix "micro" is what should be unnecessary - yet sadly is very necessary in these dark days.

 

[Taylor]

But I wasn't quoting you. I was asking follow-ups to illustrate similarities with "change" (which I imagined you acknowledge) and "microevolution" and hoping you would quote my queries with further clarification. Do you imagine you know my intent when I wrote those questions? How is your interpretation of what I meant "indisputable"?

Brother, the problem here is that you’re simply not reading what I am saying. I know you weren’t quoting me, but I’m having a difficult time understanding how you can’t see that replying to my statement that I disavow evolution with, “So you disavow change?” is a straw man. It’s like when I say, “Abortion is wrong,” and someone replies with, “So you hate women?”

And I never said what your intentions were. In fact, I literally said that I don’t know what they were. Again, you’re just not reading me.

Either way, I’m out. I simply don’t have the time. Thanks for the interaction. Perhaps I became involved in a tussle not my own (Prov. 26:17).

 

[RamistThomist]

“So you disavow change?” is a straw man. It’s like when I say, “Abortion is wrong,” and someone replies with, “So you hate women?”

That's kind of what you did with your claim about science can't even figure out genders. It's like the Simpsons' episode where Homer sees a grad student and asks, "You're a grad student, huh? How come you guys can go to the moon but you can't keep my socks from smelling?"

 

[No Other Name]

Brother, the problem here is that you’re simply not reading what I am saying. I know you weren’t quoting me, but I’m having a difficult time understanding how you can’t see that replying to my statement that I disavow evolution with, “So you disavow change?” is a straw man. It’s like when I say, “Abortion is wrong,” and someone replies with, “So you hate women?”

And I never said what your intentions were. In fact, I literally said that I don’t know what they were. Again, you’re just not reading me.

Either way, I’m out. I simply don’t have the time. Thanks for the interaction. Perhaps I became involved in a tussle not my own (Prov. 26:17).

Adding on to make sure a brother does not misunderstand me as hostile:

Oh, I think I see it now. I mean, you can still be done here; I am not trying to bring you back into a fight or anything.

But I did not say "So you disavow change?"

I said "You disavow change altogether?" with an intent for an implied rhetorical nature in my written tone that that cannot possibly be true of you and then, read on from there the other queries that try to imply one (change) cannot be accepted without the full essence of the term (micro) being accepted as well.

Again as I said, I definitely take ownership of being unclear here as I did originally in post 71 where I tried to clear that up.

I only answer you to not beat a dead horse (not at all) but just so you do not think me ill-intentioned to change your words or purposefully misconstrue you. I never intended that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

not beat a dead horse (not at all)

But isn't it nice to know that if you wanted to, you could?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

“Science” cannot even tell the difference between boys and girls.

But you cannot tell the difference between a cat and a human. We had a discussion on this last year. You told me:

This is causing me cognitive friction. I distinctly remember when you were a cat sitting on a tractor.

 

[Taylor]

But you cannot tell the difference between a cat and a human. We had a discussion on this last year. You told me:

I also have told you this before:

 

[DNA=XX]

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).

Yes!
Additionally,
who takes into account that there was no predation prior to the fall (all ate herbs), which means that when God cursed then radical changes occurred even some creatures turning them into predators after changing their physiology.