Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cocktails! The relevance of YEC to ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is the hypothesis of Young Earth Creation (YEC) relevant to ID? Most in the ID community will say, “NO”, but let me offer some reasons to think the answer could be, “YES”.

The hypothesis of a young Earth or young universe comes from religious beliefs rooted in a chronology constructed by taking the genealogies in the Bible (like Luke Chapter 3, 1 Chronicles or the Table of Nations in Genesis 10). YEC is not strictly an Evangelical Christian hypothesis but is accepted by some Jewish traditions. For example, see this commentary on the Jewish calendar by physicist Gerald Schroeder:

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

Gerald Schroeder
Age of the Universe

[Gerald Schroeder was in the movie Expelled, and his writings were influential to converting Antony Flew from atheism to theism. He is obviosly on the pro-ID side of the debate.]

But, problematic for YEC-sympathetic skeptics like myself, most of the claims of a young cosmos proceed from religious beliefs, not hard empirical data, and worse, it is in conflict with mainstream accepted physics.

However, let us suppose that some future scientific discoveries begin to overturn mainstream views about the age of the universe. What if these discoveries cause us to seriously reconsider that the universe is substantially younger than it is today. And if not the whole universe, even demonstrating the Solar System, the Earth, or the geological column are young would have huge payoffs for ID.

One does not even need to revise long ages to 6000 years. Even demonstrating it is on the order of a few hundred million years, or demonstrating certain geological features are not more than 10 million years old vs. 500 million years old will absolutely overturn the dominance of Darwinism.

Most of the founding leaders of ID accept the conventional age of the universe. Few YECs have formal affiliations with ID organizations (like the Discovery Institute, IDEA, etc.) To my knowledge, only YECs like Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, myself have had formal ties to ID organizations. ID is dominated (and I think that is a good thing) by those that accept the conventional age of the universe and the geological column. But what if the young cosmos or young Earth or young geological column hypothesis becomes scientifically defensible? The payoff will be enormous for ID, and most of evolutionary biology will be overturned.

Are there anomalies that have kept my hopes for a Young Cosmos (in spite of doubts) alive? Absolutely. The reason I’m posting this, is that when readers say, “Sal, why are you posting YEC stuff here at UD? Isn’t YEC irrelevant to ID?”

I’ll respond by saying, “No. It could be very relevant if true. If the universe or earth or even the geological column are demonstrated to be young, evolutionism is toast, and ID prevails.” And then I’ll point them to this essay.

The chances for the truthfulness of the young cosmos or young Earth or young geological column hypothesis is remote, but in light of the potential payoff, if one were a betting man like Pascal, betting on revised ages is a favorable wager. Nevertheless, ID proponents are still prevailing even with the assumption of old ages. A revision to young ages would be icing on the cake and ID’s ultimate triumph.

NOTES:

I use the word “Cocktail” in the title to emphasize the informal nature of this thread akin to a discussion over a beer or cocktail. Public blogs are for fruitful and informal brainstorms and are not intended as serious venues for scholarship. However, blogs might be a starting point for ideas leading to interesting research projects.

One professor of mine, James Trefil, recounted how a discussion over a beer was the start of a research project that led to his book, Are We Alone:The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations , which became an inspiration for many in the ID movement (even though Trefil himself completely rejects ID). Trefil famously said in that book:

If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past 20 years shows that we are unique and therefore special in God’s sight.

Comments
scordova:
And if not the whole universe, even demonstrating the Solar System, the Earth, or the geological column are young would have huge payoffs for ID.
No. It would have huge payoffs for YEC, but ID doesn't care. Unless by "huge payoffs" you are thinking of something else other than evidentiary support. Maybe all you're trying to say is that a young Earth would make some people who have hitherto been unwilling to consider ID stop and consider the possibility of design in biology (because they would realize the deep time isn't available for Darwinism)? ----- Chance @3 I think you have some good thoughts there.Eric Anderson
May 26, 2013
May
05
May
26
26
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Sal, a few thoughts. It looks to me like the following logic reasonably models the relationship between YEC and ID: YEC implies ID. Therefore, If YEC is true, then so is ID. (sufficiency) If YEC is false, ID can still be true. (sufficient but not necessary) I ID is false, so is YEC. (necessity) So ID is necessary for YEC to be true, but the converse does not hold. Does this seem reasonable?
You're the only one in the whole world who has articulated the views I share in such an exacting way. Yes it is reasonable, and imho, absolutely correct! The rest I agree with as well, hence, YECs have a very vested interest in seeing ID prevail. ID does not need YEC to prevail, but it would be an absolute rout for ID over Darwinism if the YEC is even partially vindicated i.e. a younger geological column (say 10 million years), old age of the Earth and Cosmos.scordova
May 26, 2013
May
05
May
26
26
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Sal, a few thoughts. It looks to me like the following logic reasonably models the relationship between YEC and ID: YEC implies ID. Therefore, If YEC is true, then so is ID. (sufficiency) If YEC is false, ID can still be true. (sufficient but not necessary) I ID is false, so is YEC. (necessity) So ID is necessary for YEC to be true, but the converse does not hold. Does this seem reasonable? This would also appear to be the case: Darwinian evolution implies not YEC. Therefore, If Darwinian evolution is true, then YEC is false. (sufficiency) If Darwinian evolution is false, YEC can still be false. (sufficient but not necessary) If YEC is true, then Darwinian evolution is false. (necessity) So by my reasoning, I think you are correct. ID and YEC have a relationship. But ID is not dependent upon YEC. The converse appears true however, that YEC is dependent upon ID, at least logically (perhaps this inference would fail if there is a possible world in which YEC is true but not ID). As long as we can say that YEC is sufficient for ID, then its validation both affirms ID and denies Darwinian evolution.Chance Ratcliff
May 26, 2013
May
05
May
26
26
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
I loved Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang". I think he definitely has some interesting ideas about geology. The problem is that there appear to be only two alternatives: the YEC 6-day (literal) creation of the Earth or the evolutionary timetable (based on Lyell's work) that indicates the Earth and universe may be eons old. I think a third view may be in order: the Genesis view. We're told in the opening verse that there was a "beginning" and we're shown that an intelligent creator was behind this creative work. No time period is given. It harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver. The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation. The term "day" used in Genesis does not merely refer to a literal 24-hour period. In the original Hebrew, it can mean longer periods of time. In the English language, we speak of "back in my day" or "in my father's day" and we know that we're not speaking of literal 24-hour periods, but rather decades of time.Barb
May 26, 2013
May
05
May
26
26
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Wait a minute. When its said conclusions about origins, like age of earth, are religious ones its missing the power of YEC. We are saying God was a witness to origins and wrote to mankind, as surely a God would do, what happened. Religious doesn't explain the point here. Genesis is saying its a witness and deny its truthfulness but one MUST accept a witness has said something. Fool or liar there it is. Christian civilization , which is modern civilization, has agreed with Genesis some or a lot until the present. You can't dismiss the witness as biased. There is no evidence on earth for a long earth existence. Geology can be explained by YEC thinkers. No problem. Remember without the geology evolution or ID critics ain't got a biological leg to stand on. Never do i see biology origins being explained without geology presumptions desperately embraced.Robert Byers
May 26, 2013
May
05
May
26
26
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply