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?

Cresentmoon -

What i am confused about is why the big argument over vestigal structures. What is the point of it?

Science is never 'finished'. I am sure Richard Dawkins doesn't mean to imply that it is. But it would be annoying to have to give that as a rider everytime he says something.

If it turns out that that the structure of the giraffe's laryneal nerve is critically useful in a way we didn't know before I guess you will say 'praise god' and I will say 'that's interesting', and if it turns out that it is in fact useless you will say 'praise god' and I will say 'that's interesting'. Why is such an important point, though?

Personally I don't think you have to look at the giraffe's nerve to see that there is major inconsistency between the biological view of the world and the religious one. Modern biology has rejected the hypothesis of 'vital forces' which animate life. Religion still embraces this concept in the belief in living souls.

I think Dawkins' argument that it proves there is no god is an order of magnitude (or more) stronger than an argument that it proves that there is a god!

I'm not religious, but could I just point out that the bible doesn't actually say that the earth is 6000years old please? It was calculated by a priest in c14 iirc, based on the information in the old testament, which is common to all the Abrahamic religions, therefore there should (but is) be no assumption that this is a purely christian viewpoint. Learned that in geology 101, ironically.

Also evolution is not purely a random construct, and so the discussion cannot be a simply 'order vs chaos' one as popularly postulated. Evolutionary changes occur when a beneficial alteration occurs to the function of a species. Thus, the human race unlikely to be a so-called finished prodct' because we still haven't fully adapted to walking upright yet.

Crescent -

There is so much in your post I don't know where to start.

When scientists use anthpomorthic language to describe the action of genes they are not literally ascribing thoughts, feelings, emotions and goals to them. Unless you understand this you are not really arguing against what scientists are saying, but a misunderstanding of it.

That said it sounds like you are saying you don't believe in the theory of evolution as laid out in modern biology at all, but an alternative idea of evolution which involves purpose and progress with the development of human life as a goal of evolution? Is that what you are saying?

"i am not arguing against science ....only when you are saying that evolution was its own agent do you need the complex belief system the neo darwinists put forward."

Crescent - you seem to be under the impression that neodarwinism is the outlandish theory of a breakaway sect, rather than that it is a non controversial theory absolutely at the heart of modern biology.

Crescent, while I agree with you that science neither proves not disproves the existence of god or gods, I would point out that Social Darwinism isn't the only source of racism, eugenics, imperialism, fascism or other struggles between groups, including systemic mysogyny, slavery and other horrors.

these things seem to be more about what information people use to jusitfy their actions than about whether or not they believe in/follow a god.

Crescent

Neodarwinism is not the same thing as sociobiology. Sociobiology is not the same thing as social Darwinism.

Neodarwinism is a term broadly used for the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology (here is the [[
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis wiki link]] if you are interested in reading the right one. It is the theory that is eluded to in your 'molecules up a tree' quote. It is a basic consensus underlying all of biological science.

Saying you disagree with it, but are not arguing against science is like saying you have no problem with physics apart from the bit about atoms.

Crescentmoon - i think you need to spend some more time researching the evils of racism, eugenics, and imperialism, done in the name of god over the centuries before Darwin happened along. sources other than wikipedia may be useful. Adolf Hitler claimed that killing Jews was gods work, fascism is not really Darwinian.

Cresent -

'the mental acrobatics required to reduce all living beings to just survival machines for inanimate molecules' may sound like science fiction to you but it is a basic underlying principle of biology.

Of course you could be right and the biologists could be wrong. But you are wrong to think that your disagreement is with Dawkins and a small group around him. The gene-centric view and the idea that evolution has been driven by purposeless natural selection (i.e. 'neodarwinism') are absolutely central to modern biology.

There are plenty of books for general readers which explain evolution without spending a chapter bashing religion. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne is good.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqvmv/Rosh_Hashanah_Science_vs_Religion/

Long time lingerer in this section.

A lot of the debates in this post are fairly futile because religion and science has totally different aims and asks totally different questions. I must admit to being totally intolerant to YEC's because they treat the Bible like a book of science and demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the nature of scientific enterprise. Social Darwinism is equally an unhelpful attack on the theory of evolution as it is science being used to answer questions that science never asked in the first place and that religion is ideally situated to address.

A lot of emphasis has been put on biology when most of the evidence supporting how old the earth is is routed in geology, chemistry, physics as well as modern observations of artificial selection. To expect defenders of science to have a specialist knowledge in all of these areas to defend their beliefs is as unreasonable as to expect all YEC's to have memorised the Bible.

The link has a fascinating conversation (staged as a debate, but it is more like a well informed conversation) discussing how science and religion can interact without conflict.

Interesting thread.

In tears with laughter at that Kentucky museum...

Crescent you sound a bit