Do "Young Earth Creationists" actually still exist?

[technodad]

I am interested to know if Young Earth Creationists (who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution did not happen) actually still exist, despite the overwhelming scientfic evidence to the contrary?

Evidently!

Pfft. I've just taken the virtual tour of the Creation Museum of Kentucky. It's dull! I wouldn't pay $30 for that!

cote, education is compulsory in the UK but school/exams are not. All local authorities check up on home educators but apparently they vary in what level of checking they do [not a home educator myself].

Most of the YEC that I have encountered (not a whole lot, but still some) seem to think that evolution, because it is called a theory, isn't any more provable than creation.

It's a misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science, as opposed to what they think, like "theory of a case" in law where you are pretty much trying to show the facts support your position more than they support your opponents position, and no one may ever really know which is true.

Of course, when I tell them that gravatational "theory" is the same kind of theory, and why don't they go after that one too, they don't usually have an answer.

Just because someone is raised in a fundamental or totally secular home doesnt mean they won't take a 180 and defy the parental teaching. I've met both types of people.

AFAIR when they survey people in the UK, slightly more British people don't accept evolution than people in the USA.

yes atheists like to gloss over the 'hell of a lot of fabulously complex' structures and processes of the body

Just as theistic creationists like to gloss over the troublesome bits as it raises difficult to answer questions about how a perfect omniscient deity could create such poorly "designed" organisms. As you did, in fact.

Whether or not the body "needs" wisdom teeth is not the point. The point is that many people (myself included) have had wisdom-teeth related problems because there simply isn't enough room in our jaws for extra teeth at the back. If we are "designed", does that not strike you as something of an oversight?

Quite what you're driving at in pointing out that the US health system often advocates the routine removal of wisdom teeth has escaped me somewhat. The US health system has many oddities that often appear driven more by how it's financed than clear health benefits. If you are arguing against the routine removal of body parts where there is no clear health benefit then I'd absolutely agree with you.

Similarly, your point regarding stem cells and wisdom teeth eludes me. Are you now suggesting that routine removal of wisdom teeth is a good thing as it allows harvesting of material that can be turned into stem cells?

I knew the theories regarding the appendix which is specifically why I didn't mention it.

But you're right in saying that it's not (primarily) evolution that divides the religious and the non-religious. There's nothing about atheism that requires a belief in evolution. All that's required is a non-belief in gods. But I'm not sure I agree about the order/chaos thing. It's more subtle than that. Eg, fundamentally there is order in the universe that is rooted in the laws of physics etc but many of those laws result in chaotic systems and a lot of what happens is sheer chance. I don't see it as black and white as you do.

Something in the region of 97% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. We have evolved over millennia through a chain of now extinct ancestors and retain many of their non-useful characteristics and a countless number of useful characteristics which mean our species survived.

It is a beautifully simple concept which many find hard to grasp.

Somehow people think that this beautifully simple concept is less likely than the idea that an invisible god with unlimited power (which he uses to kill babies and cause volcanos), appeared out of nowhere and made everything himself, and that we were all clearly made on a Friday afternoon when he wanted to get away early from work, so he made a few cock-ups.

Stop cherry picking the data that only supports your preconceived outcome and think using the intelligence god gave you you evolved to have.

Creationists ... Why does the human female sport a yolk sac? Wouldn't it make more sense to have all the gestational nutrition happening through the same (mammalian) mechanism, rather than starting off the same way as a reptile and then mutating?

... additionally (I'll stop after this ), why does the embryonic face develop on two sides, like a fish, having to fuse in an incredibly delicate process? Wouldn't god have just made the face develop frontally from the start? And why does a 5/6 week foetus look like a newt?

My answer would be that each of us went through all the stages of our evolution in the womb. Fantastically amazing! But a perfect designer wouldn't mess about with that, would s/he??

I love your posts, crescent :)

My mind will remain boggled for eternity, I fear, as to how one might square creationist determinism with evolution. I do read on it - sometimes - and my reading just leaves me more boggled.

As far as threads on here go, it'll just have to be one of those "Marmite" issues (I like Marmite, btw!) ... In the world at large, I'll continue finding creationism dangerous to societies, for a variety of reasons.

Nobody with any sense has really assumed 'junk dna' is junk. Proper science never assumes it knows all the answers, it just keeps asking questions.

crescent said: im bemused at your talking of pre conceived outcome technodad. if i take you literally in your agreement at Mon 03-Sep-12 18:49:47 with Fink's second point when she/ he said..

"Having said that (and the common misconceptions do annoy me), personally, I accept evolution only because it seems to be accepted by the vast majority of respected scientists. I make no claims to understand it and I've not got a vast amount personally invested in it - if scientists were to turn around and agree on a different explanation I'd probably go with that."

But Fink wasn't trying to fit data into a preconceived outcome, all Fink was doing was trusting scientific experts, because she is not a scientific expert herself (or himself?).

YOU are cherry-picking data to argue against the agreed scientific consensus. The agreed scientific consensus is a continually evolving process which questions and tests the current understanding and never rests on it's laurels and never accepts a doctrine as final.

Your preconceived outcome is that "god created the universe and everything within it" and then you latch onto anything that supports your theory. Within science, if the data no-longer supports the theory, then the theory is changed and re-tested. Therefore, I fully standby my earlier statement in that if new data were to be gathered that disproved evolutionary theory, then I would adjust my opinion with the scientific consensus because I trust the rigorous process. There are some things in the world that science does not know, but it doesn't just make shit up to fill in the gaps, it is honest and acknowledges that it doesn't know.

Evolutionary theory is still fully supported by the available data, and creationist or intelligent design theory is pseudo-science twaddle (not rigorous at all) which is not supported by the data unless you cherry-pick very very small elements of the data and then shut your eyes tightly to everything else.

crescent said:

science is changing and we are learning more about the body all the time.

and

"It is the most significant shift in scientists' understanding of the way our DNA operates since the sequencing of the human genome in 2000"

Exactly my point. When the scientific evidence improves, the scientific consensus changes with the data, because it is a rigorous process of testing and re-testing to better our understanding of the world.

The preconceived outcome that everything must prove that god is the creator has not changed in millennia, which goes to show what a ridiculous approach to understanding the world religion is!

Don't search for how the data can prove your belief, look at what the data actually proves.

I think you've misapprehended Technodad in a major way, crescent, but there's no way I'm getting off my fluffy cloud of cheerful disagreement! (Not today, anyhow.)
Thanks, and backatcha.

Thanks garlicnutty.

crescentmoon, I have utterly no idea how you have come to your conclusions from what I have said. It is almost like I am having a conversation with someone who isn't reading what I am writing, and is reading something completely different. Maybe, you are only reading the bits of what I am writing that support what you want to help your argument, much like how creationism pseudo-science does with scientific evidence.

I am quite happy to have a debate with you, but not if you just ignore what I am saying and misrepresent me in a childish (and very unskillful) way.

When you wish to have an adult discussion where you actually listen to what others are saying, I am happy to get involved, just let me know.

I am pretty sure that you will want the last word so that anyone who reads this thread will think that you kicked me into touch, so please crack on.