Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

A new poster at EvC mentioned that they were originally a believer in evolution, but became a born again Xian and so now believe in a young earth and inerrant scripture.This raised a sort of chicken/egg question in my mind. In moving from evo to creo, which is the order that one takes?Does one first find that the evidence of evolution is not compelling and that there is evidence of a young earth and so creationism is accurate, and finally that scripture had been inerrant?Or does one first become emotionally attached to scripture, and the belief that it must be inerrant, and so find that the evidence for evolution must be lacking?I don't mean "emotionall attached" to sound demeaning, but I have no other way of phrasing what I mean. It is certainly not an intellectual study which brings one to feel connected to scripture, as it is a sprititual and emotional quest. It is about feeling. Thus try and take it in that meaning.(I am not sure where this thread would go.)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I think that this is the best forum for this since the options are both faith based.AdminBrian.This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 06-27-2005 09:06 AM

The path to a belief in inerrancy is separate. I mean, there's overwhelming evidence that the ancient Egyptians existed, and both me and the authors of the Bible agree that they existed, but that doesn't mean we're both inerrant.
Evidence that someone is right doesn't lead to a belief that they're inerrant, so the evidence is irrelevant.

inerrancy comes first.i don't think anyone convers, then is presented with a load to scientific evidence and is unbiased because of faith reasons. people convert because of faith, not evidence.

---

אָרַח

I'm not convinced that there are enough evo-to-creo conversions to observe whether or not a trend exists.Anybody can say, "I used to be an evo." but in most cases I think it's just a propaganda tactic.Before we can decide which came first - young earth or inerrant scripture - we have to establish that the evo-to creo conversion is not a myth.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

also a good point.i was interested in dinosaurs at a young age, as a lot of people my age were. but i was interested in them on a very technical level. i researched a lot of paleontology. i took classes, hung out with paleontologists, and just generally learned everything i could get my hands on.when i became a christian, and i started hearing creationist rhetoric about "no evolution" and "young earth" and all of that stuff, my immediate reaction was (at the age of 13), "you're full of shit. i know better than that."This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-25-2005 02:11 AM

---

אָרַח

Interesting... so similar to myself (same age as well), tho' my science was astronomy/cosmology. I did flirt with creationism for about 1 year (14-15) on the basis of faith and totally ignoring science.Now I am quite happy with creationism as a point of faith for many Christians but I despise creation science. Genesis 1,2 contains the most extreme (but understandable) anthropomorphisms of God that I cannot possibly consider it as an accurate portrait of reality. Of course, Genesis 1,2 could be taking place in a metaphysical reality distinct from what we call the physical universe...

quote:

---

I'm not convinced that there are enough evo-to-creo conversions to observe whether or not a trend exists.

​

Anybody can say, "I used to be an evo." but in most cases I think it's just a propaganda tactic.

---

I'm pretty much convinced of this as well - many of the "converted" never actually seem to have much of a clue about TOE. Moreover, I suspect a lot of them become creationists and think "well I guess that means I must have been an evolutionist before" without really having considering their position in any detail previously.I'm reaching now - the most "convinced" are those who convert due to some traumatic experience - the youth earth stuff then becomes tied-up to the "solving" of that experience via conversation. Because if it's not all true, then maybe none of it's true and those "bad things" were real, could happen again etc etc.

The sad fact is that people in general have little to no knowledge of evolution in the first place, so "conversion" to creationism is no big deal. Science is not a strong point for Western Civilisation (or at least the English speaking sector). I don't think so... many Christians are raised in Christian families, and evolution is debunked from an early age. But I agree that YE is often inextricably (but erronously IMO) tied to that person's Christian faith.Or were you refering only to Christians who had once been "believing evolutionists"?

Well I'm more specially refering to those who have one of those "touched by the spirit" moments later in life. I remember discussing TOE with one once and it was like I was swearing at them - they were shaking!

Yes, but your typical life-long Christian just takes it as a matter of course. They simply accept that certain things are true. They don't cling to them like a drowning victim, and demand that they be true.

quote:

---

I'm pretty much convinced of this as well - many of the "converted" never actually seem to have much of a clue about TOE.

---

many? I can hardly think of any examples of people who were well versed in evolution (or science in general) who converted. On this board the "converted" show no familiarity with the TOE at all. It becomes sadly comical when molecular evolution is discussed. The only instances where I have encountered creationists with any knowledge of evolution have been Peter Borger, Tranquility Base, salty (John Davidson), and Stephen ben Yeshua. However, Borger and Base were creo's who had Ph.D.s in non evolution fields and did not convert as they were creo's to begin. They just happened to be better read than 99.9% of the rest..Michael Behe falls into this category. Though Borger and Base were a lot of fun to debate with relative to the run of the mill science ignorant creo. Salty was just plain insane and attacked everybody creo or evo..it is not clear what his position really is other than everyone is stupid except for him and Anne Coulter. Stephen ben Yeshua was a well known ecologist who dropped off the face of the planet in the early 70's, until he showed up on this board with such wonderful concepts as using Baysian statistics to give probability scores to any ridiculous thing you could come up with and that farts were evidence for demons...so he may have "converted"..but I am not sure into what. The bottom line, I have yet to see a "converted" person who before said "conversion" had any clue about science in the first place. They may exist, but it is exceedingly rare...probably because most evolutionary biologists hold religious beliefs so converting would mean becoming a biblical literlist rather than finding religion..it would also require turning ones back on evidence, logic, and reason...but that is another issue.

Speaking as a creo to evo convert, I'd have to say that neither of these is true.They began to ingrain into my head the scriptural "truths" from a very young age. Where I grew up, the answer to everything came from the catholic priests, and their answer to everything was "goddunit."I was first exposed to the idea of using evidence to come up with explanations in high school. That's right, I was introduced for the first time the idea that I can't just pull answers out of my butt no earlier than high school in the good ole USA. Even then, I disrupted my science classes very often, because rather than saying "goddunit", the teachers were giving me some other seemingly weird explanations.I went through a period of extreme confusion. On the one hand, "goddunit" had already taken hold of me. On the other, these explanations presented by the teachers were beginning to make sense.I began to really read the bible for the first time in high school.What's the moral of the story? Even though I didn't know shit about the scripture, I was absolutely convinced that "goddunit" was the explination for everything.Ok, what's my point? I believe that ignorance is the main cause for the supposed evo to creo conversions. The theory of evolution is a complex scientific concept that takes years of study and brain twisting to understand enough for one to really begin to analyze the evidence on his own. On the other hand, "goddunit" is a lot more simple and easy to understand. Combined with the necessary "have faith or go to hell" thing, it is more pleasant to see and hear in the eyes and ears of the unwashed masses.And remember our angry teen Chris? I'm convinced that every creo started out like him, a know-it-all narcissist. And don't even try to deny it. I was one, too.Which reminds me. We have the oracle of EvC (Brad). We have the wise men (Jar, Sylas, and Percy), we have the mathematician (Rrhain), we have the feminist (I think it's obvious who I'm talking about), we have the sexist (I also think it's obvious who I'm talking about), we have the gays (ahem...), we have the angry teen, we have the biologists, physicists, philosophers, etc.This forum has representatives from every group of people in our society.

I think we're oversubscribed on smartasses.Chris

Reply to the Question, "Which was first?"
I, and many of my acquaintance, had believed the "inerrant Scriptures" for decades before we learned of the "young earth."1) Mathematics is the most exact science known to man.
2) Evolution is only a theory.Bishop Ussher, and Barnabas had added the Bible story up to about 4000 years, in 2nd century, and 17th century.
My calculation (Gen 5.1; The Beginning of Time) is: 4148 BC.
God created a grown man and woman and an "old" earth.
hoaryhead