Is YEC dangerous? Yes

Why? Because they confuse their interpretations of Genesis with God. For example, this comment from a post this past weekend,

If Genesis is not true, the rest of the Bible isn’t true, Jesus never existed, God doesn’t exist, and this life is nothing. Because without Genesis, evolution comes into play and this life is utterly meaningless.

What happens if this person hits a wall when for a moment, he accepts some fact of science. He then loses all faith. He becomes an a-theist. His former fundamentalism is not changed, but the foundation is. This is only one danger in YEC. It removes Christ.

Post By Joel Watts (10,056 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

30 thoughts on Is YEC dangerous? Yes

  1. I believe the earth is young, but wouldn’t have a problem if I was proven wrong. I happen to believe it for scientific reasons though, not just theological.

    I’m sure one could come up with a reason to entitle a blog post “Is OEC Dangerous? Yes”

    You’ll find kooks in any area of life and they shouldn’t be used to generalize to all holders of that position. I believe we should argue for/against the statements of facts themselves and leave the peripheral stuff alone. I.e. tell me why YEC is wrong, not why the YECer is wierd.

    • The YEC is wrong because it isn’t what Genesis 1 is talking about. Further, actual science disproves Creation ‘science.’

        • Not sure, really, if I would fall into those camps. I guess, if I had to choose, the former is the best description.

          I am not sure allegory is the best descriptive. I would say classical myth. It is the beginning of the nation of Israel, several creation stories, etc… a lot of history in those chapters.

          • That would be my understanding of it as well. I would classify myself as a day-age creationist however this classification does not necessarily imply theistic evolutionism, progressive creationism, or God-guided evolutionism. I would definitely agree that YEC is dangerous. I used to be a YEC.

  2. “I happen to believe it for scientific reasons though”

    And what about all the reasons for believing the universe is billions of years old. One can only be YEC by being highly selective with the evidence.

  3. the biggest danger of YEC is that it claims “biblical support” and yet there is none. Whether the earth is young or old is irrelevant.. if your faith depends on the earth being young or old.. then you have more serious problems than creation.

    The Bible does not care if creation is young or old, it only cares that creation occurred because of God, that all things exist because of God. Science is irrelevant.

  4. When the same rock is dated 10s to 100s of millions of years different ages by different labs, intact soft tissues are found in dinosaur bones, carbon 14 is found in diamonds supposedly 100s of millions of years old and significant amounts of helium is found in rock inclusions that are supposedly 100s of millions to billions of years old I think its not the YE Creationists who are being highly selective with the evidence.

      • There’s lots out there if you’re willing to look at both sides. Here’s a start: http://www.icr.org/rate/ I have looked at both sides, being educated as an evolutionist during 7 years of university education, not knowing there was an alternative out there, and when I looked at the young earth evidence I changed my mind.

          • Yes, me too. Many of us, from what I’ve gleaned from the evangelical Christian communities in which I’ve participated, were once YECers before we learned to evaluate the scientific evidence and adopt a more spiritually mature viewpoint.

  5. “The Bible does not care if creation is young or old”

    I don’t know about that. You might be able to argue that the obvious reference to 24 hour days wasn’t meant to be a scientific statement but rather a literary device of some sort. The bible is concerned with objective truth however, and when we’re all talking about this in eternity some of us will be able to say “see, I told you – here’s the proper understanding in scripture – some of us just couldn’t see it”

    “Science is irrelevant”
    You’re kidding, right? Science is here mainly due to the Christian worldview that says that God created order in the universe. Its part of general revelation.

  6. Dave,

    The bible is concerned with God and his interaction with his creation, not the mechanics of the creation itself. Therefore, in regards to getting understanding from Scripture, the ONLY relevant science is the science of hermeneutics… well, if you consider archaeology a science, then you can add that, but it is more of a informatory than a guide.

    • I think there’s more stuff packed in there (in the bible) than we think, but yes I get what you’re saying and largely agree. That still has no bearing on young vs old earth creationism though.

      • Dave, that would be because young vs old is a scientific debate, not a theological one.

        Theologically speaking, it doesnt matter if the earth is young, old or in between, it only matters that God caused it to be.

      • Actually it does. First, if you unpack Genesis 1, you’ll notice that it has nothing to do with YEC, OEC or any EC. Instead, it is something else.

  7. As for the business of carbon 14 being found in what are affirmed to be ancient rocks , that canard touted by young earther creationists has been called into considerable doubt by scientific reports , as to possible later newer influx contaminations of carbon 14 in the matrix of rocks studied by the young earth creationists —such as can happen with seeping groundwater that contains carbon 14 , the prospect of the tests not being conducted under vacumn conditions and so on . Talk origins has an article that debunks the hyping of the carbon 14 in the diamonds .

  8. I have not read John Walton but have come across his book on The Lost World of Genesis One. I have read good reviews on it. And negative reviews from YEC’s. Have you read Hugh Ross? YEC’s give him a ton of crap.

Leave a Reply, Please!