Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

[dad]

Ah. The TRUE spirit.
Ah. You have TRUE spirituality.

It must be a wonderful feeling being of the chosen few.

Wonderful is right. The kind of Wonder all can share if they desire.

 

[dad]

I was thinking more along the lines of Satan clouding the minds of scientists to make them believe the earth is much older than it is. So these scientists aren't necessarily in on it.

Exactly. No more than a bag of nails is in on it! The communists used to have a word for this. Useful idiots.

 

[gnostic]

At first I wasn't sure what YEC meant, having not bothered to look at what sub-forum this was under, so I googled and scratched my head: what conspiracy theory could be behind the Young Entrepreneurs Council?

Then I scrolled down and saw the Young Earth Creation...

Sorry, I thought YEC was a universally recognized abbreviation. It is more precise than just "creationist" and I use it almost exclusively (together with "Hamist", which I totally made up but people mostly know what I mean).

Yes initials are sometimes misleading. For example when people talk about STDs I always think of Subscriber Trunk Dialling, which was a change in the UK telephone system in the early 1960s.

I sometimes confused the abbreviation of TOE.

Normally I would associate TOE with biology abbreviation for the Theory of Evolution...but physicists also used ToE, on the unsolved problem of the Theory of Everything.

The Theory of Everything is supposed to combined a number of different frameworks of physics solutions (eg General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Standard Model of Particle Physics, etc) in relation to the 4 fundamental interactions or forces, into a single equation. These interactions/forces are gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic.

But my nieces only associate toe with their 10 digits of their feet.

 

[gnostic]

But TRUE spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with how one is raised.

I dislike it when people attach the “true _” * fills in the blanks * of this religion or that...or this philosophy or that.

Because the people who believe they belonged in such group, think they are really special, so they have the tendencies to be arrogant in what they believe in (whether it be religion or philosophy), and intolerant of others.

People who declare others not being True Christians or True Muslims or True whatever, think they are the only ones who are right, so incapable of learning from their mistakes.

 

[Heyo]

I dislike it when people attach the “true _” * fills in the blanks * of this religion or that...or this philosophy or that.

Because the people who believe they belonged in such group, think they are really special, so they have the tendencies to be arrogant in what they believe in (whether it be religion or philosophy), and intolerant of others.

People who declare others not being True Christians or True Muslims or True whatever, think they are the only ones who are right, so incapable of learning from their mistakes.

The "TRUE xxx" should really only be used when xxx = scotsman (those who don't pour sugar on their porridge).
There probably is a designator that is more precise than "true". Often "true" stands for "original" as in "before the meaning of the term shifted to the current colloquial meaning".
E.g.: I call myself an Agnostic. If I have to specify that more I add "Huxleyan" (which is the only TRUE™ form of Agnosticism).

 

[exchemist]

I dislike it when people attach the “true _” * fills in the blanks * of this religion or that...or this philosophy or that.

Because the people who believe they belonged in such group, think they are really special, so they have the tendencies to be arrogant in what they believe in (whether it be religion or philosophy), and intolerant of others.

People who declare others not being True Christians or True Muslims or True whatever, think they are the only ones who are right, so incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Agreed. I immediately think of No True Scotsman.

In general, when people feel the need to assert truth, rather than demonstrate it through what they have to say about the subject, I am suspicious. A bit like all those "People's" republics we used to have...which were invariably one-party states with oppressive regimes. We still have some of them left, e.g. the People's Republic of China (yeah, right), the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea , etc.

 

[leroy]

I'm recycling an other OP I made on an other forum where the above thesis was generally accepted, even by YEC. But in good scientific manner, an experiment has to be repeatable. So my challenge is: show how someone, with an at least average education about the facts and sans a serious case of superiority complex, can believe in YEC without also believing in a grand conspiracy.

My guess is that most YEC would not claim a massive world-wide conspiracy, but rather a massive bias towards naturalism.

The fact that most scientists are not YEC can be explained by appealing to this bias.

 

[exchemist]

The "massive bias towards naturalism" of course is what makes science science. The success of this "bias" (i.e. science) is abundantly clear.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes initials are sometimes misleading. For example when people talk about STDs I always think of Subscriber Trunk Dialling, which was a change in the UK telephone system in the early 1960s.

I always think of salinity-temperature diagrams, which are used in oceanography.

 

[night912]

I believe it is the simply result of deifying the Bible....as the ultimate truth.

I disagree. Not all who believes that the bible is the ultimate truth are YEC. I would think majority of them are OEC. Keep in mind that not all who believes that the bible is the ultimate truth, believe that everything written in the bible is literally true. Analogies, metaphors, parables, poems etc, when kept in context, are not necessarily considered as false.

Even a fictional story can contain fictional stories within the story itself.

Ex:
I have a book that follows the main character on his journey of fictional books reading. That book could either be a novel or a biography. The characters of those books goes on a similar journey of fictional books reading. This can keep on going on and on.

 

[gnostic]

My guess is that most YEC would not claim a massive world-wide conspiracy, but rather a massive bias towards naturalism.

The fact that most scientists are not YEC can be explained by appealing to this bias.

If you want to understand nature, then of course you will have to investigate it through any one or more branches of Natural Science.

No scriptures or theology can teach people the mechanisms of nature. Scriptures like the Quran and Bible only provide very general and simplistic descriptions about nature, that lack details to explain what they are, how they form or how they work.

Scriptures are not science treatises, so why do creationists like yourself pretend the scriptures are science books?

 

[Yazata]

Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

So my challenge is: show how someone, with an at least average education about the facts and sans a serious case of superiority complex, can believe in YEC without also believing in a grand conspiracy.

If the subject line is your thesis, aren't you the one who needs to argue for it?

I'm not sure what YEC has to do with conspiracy theories or why I would want to argue for or against your thesis, at least until I better understand it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The conspiracy does not need to involve very many humans. Dark inspiration from the pit would be considered a conspiracy. Those few Satanists or possessed people or willing liars who push the agenda would be a conspiracy. But probably not the average duped so called scientist that worked in the origins game.

Tap dance all you like, you have nothing.

 

[leroy]

If you want to understand nature, then of course you will have to investigate it through any one or more branches of Natural Science.

No scriptures or theology can teach people the mechanisms of nature. Scriptures like the Quran and Bible only provide very general and simplistic descriptions about nature, that lack details to explain what they are, how they form or how they work.

Scriptures are not science treatises, so why do creationists like yourself pretend the scriptures are science books?

All I am doing is answering to the OP, …..My personal guess is that YEC are typically not “conspiracy theorists” they would attribute scientific consensus for an old earth on a bias in science towards naturalism..would you have a differetn guess?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you want to understand nature, then of course you will have to investigate it through any one or more branches of Natural Science.

No scriptures or theology can teach people the mechanisms of nature. Scriptures like the Quran and Bible only provide very general and simplistic descriptions about nature, that lack details to explain what they are, how they form or how they work.

Scriptures are not science treatises, so why do creationists like yourself pretend the scriptures are science books?

Is relying on the only thing we have evidence for and the only thing we can test really a bias? Or do you think a creationist chose that word for negative impact?

 

[Heyo]

If the subject line is your thesis, aren't you the one who needs to argue for it?

I'm not sure what YEC has to do with conspiracy theories or why I would want to argue for or against your thesis, at least until I better understand it.

The argument behind the thesis is that a YEC must assume a conspiracy of scientists and science publishers to explain why there is such an overwhelming consensus between scientists and why there are no papers arguing for YEC.
Alternatively he could also proclaim his superiority over all scientists (as @leroy is trying to do).

 

[Heyo]

All I am doing is answering to the OP, …..My personal guess is that YEC are typically not “conspiracy theorists” they would attribute scientific consensus for an old earth on a bias in science towards naturalism..would you have a differetn guess?

My experience is that most YEC go with the conspiracy and only few go with the delusion of grandeur.

 

[Yazata]

The argument behind the thesis is that a YEC must assume a conspiracy of scientists and science publishers to explain why there is such an overwhelming consensus between scientists and why there are no papers arguing for YEC.

Why couldn't the YEC believer just say that the majority of the scientific community is mistaken in this instance? 100 years ago scientists held many beliefs that today most people would say are wrong. So it doesn't seem outlandish to suggest that some of the things that scientists say today are mistaken too. I wouldn't call that a 'conspiracy' of scientists if the scientists honestly believe what they are saying and are trying to do their best.

Alternatively he could also proclaim his superiority over all scientists (as @leroy is trying to do).

Or the YEC believer could assert the superiority of divine revelation. Assuming that such a thing as special divine revelations exist (something I'm exceedingly doubtful about) it again wouldn't be outlandish to give it more credence than the fallible and work-in-progress consensus of today's scientific community.

 

[leroy]

The argument behind the thesis is that a YEC must assume a conspiracy of scientists and science publishers to explain why there is such an overwhelming consensus between scientists and why there are no papers arguing for YEC.
Alternatively he could also proclaim his superiority over all scientists (as @leroy is trying to do).

That’s strange because

1 I am not a YEC

2 I Have never proclaimed superiority over all scientists.

 

[leroy]

My experience is that most YEC go with the conspiracy and only few go with the delusion of grandeur.

Really? can you quote any creationists site where they claim “conspiracy” as an explanation for the scientific consensus for an old earth?