I agree. I'm still puzzled as to why it is necessary that the world agree, when it is taught as part and parcel of Revelation itself (must be literally true for it to follow that Jesus is the Second Adam). It's not even a purely scientific argument in the sense of being divorced from spiritual truth - it demands spiritual truth to be correct, but how is spiritual truth observant?
When it must be true for our beliefs to be true - and it is consistently linked with spiritual Truth - other people hear as "we want to convert you" not "we understand the earth's evidence differently through sole observation." It seems to me the movement wants it cake and eat it too - to be considered for a secular curriculum by label of scientific evidence, but the bias and lens of the scientific understanding rests in the supernatural, not observable things. You question the model, suggest a liberal stance and the rebuke is to point to the NT, not the earth itself - how is that science?
It starts with a belief that is not observable. It doesn't start on already established laws and theories. And to thing the whole "well, they start from a belief too." Well, in a sense, yes - but their understandings, at least as recorded, wasn't born out of reading a religious book - they were born out of observing the earth and its creatures. The idea of millions of years came from observing the rock layers, evolution by observing animals. I still haven't heard what religion these ideas came from to be categorized belief in the same fashion as YEC. The origins of these two "belief systems" are totally different and opposite of one another in how they were formed.
Which is fine to teach this, but not in a school classroom, not here in the US. And even so, it seems really puzzling to me that we are not to be "of the world" but the movement seeks to be considered as an alternative (meaning not necessarily superior, and worthy of ears that are not spiritually enlightened) to secular ideas. I think that demanding to be taught ALONG SIDE something considered to be so abhorable is a bit of a compromise, for those who say "no compromise." "Our ideas are just another system of ideas in the world - so it should be taught as such." The way this is advocated to be taught doesn't even reflect the attitudes of the model vs evolution.
I have no problem with seminars, and such on college campuses that allow it (I went to one, in fact). I'm not saying it can't be presented, but it's just not science, not in the classical sense. And yes, I agree that YEC does seem to divorce science and the Bible by saying that something that is observed is not true because the first chapter of a religious book - that one cannot hypothesize and draw a conclusion if it doesn't agree... which, I have to say I agree with some other people, I know that God created the heavens and earth, and if I suppose and determine I know exactly how - where is the incentive to learn anymore? There's really no incentive to study the rocks, and the fossils - I already know the story, absolutely conclusive. In that sense, they are divorced, because one trumps the other every time the other disagrees. That's not a harmony of the two.
A good scientist, imo, is one that will ask a question to which he thinks he already knows the answer. Or venture to learn something else about the answer he already has. But enough rambling. lol
I say select ones do - I've heard it and seen it. But I wouldn't be so bold as to say EVERY YEC does this.
On the flip side, Christians with evolutionary understandings and atheists are also guilty.
