Re: [asa] A graduate student speaks out

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Mon Jan 21 2008 - 19:11:28 EST

> Ok, I'm not defending YECism, but.... I'm really not comfortable with this kind of characterization. My impression is that most serious YECs are doing their best to support what they believe is a correct interpretation of scripture. I think we have to be very careful about calling that a "delusion," particularly as the "delusion" and "wish-fullfillment" memes are applied heartily against all of us theists by the new atheism. We all believe at least some things on the basis of scripture that are hard to reconcile. I believe the scriptural interpreation of my YEC brothers and sisters is unsustainable and that they are wrong, but I don't think most are deluded. Now, there are a few professional YECs whom I believe are just dishonest, but that's another matter. <

I mean to identify those who are professionally promoting YEC or are
generating new "scientific" arguments as being classifiable under the
delusional or dishonest headings, as opposed to the average YEC who is
simply accepting what he has heard. I would make that identification
on the basis of the consistently rotten quality of the arguments. I
think if I were out to deliberately make things up, I'd do a better
job of making internally consistent arguments that matched known
physical evidence.

I'm not so concerned about how old one thinks the earth is. I am
concerned that the scientific data be treated honestly. "I think the
earth is young and don't really know anything about science" is a
consistent position. "I think the earth is young even though the
scientific data all point the other way" is also a consistent
position. "There are scientific data that support a young earth" is

While those on the list generally have issues with young earth
interpretations of scripture, the real difficulties about honesty are
associated with the efforts to have the appearance of scientific (or
other, e.g. eisegesis of unrelated verses, misrepresentaitons of
history, etc.) backing for one's claims.

I have great difficulty in envisioning an honest explanation for clear
misrepresentations. I'm not talking about out of context misuse of
statements that sound somewhat amenable to a young earth view-one can
genuinely believe that they are chinks in the vast left wing
conspiracy that promotes evolution-but rather direct misrepresentation
of what has been stated. For example, the Answers in Genesis
arguments that should no longer be used page cited van Till et al.,
Science Held Hostage, on moon dust but claimed that the argument was
being withdrawn based on young earthers considering new evidence, when
in reality it was old earthers pointing out the old evidence never
supported the claim.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 21 19:12:34 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 21 2008 - 19:12:34 EST