YEC vs OEC

[Socratic Berean]

There are several OEC schools of thought. Some include in their statement of faith a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible (and they give YEC advocates a good run for their money arguing on a scriptural, exegetical level, in addition to a level that includes observations in nature). They believe in God-caused creation without macro-evolution, but generally accept micro evolution (speciation). Reasons to Believe and Biola University are leading organizations in this camp. Others, like Biologos, adhere to theistic evolution (macro and micro). Intelligence Design OECers come in many colors, but the Discovery Institute probably captures the general arguments framework for most, and all of these groups have some variation in the extent to which they adhere to Gap Theory. Lots of room for discussion here...

 

[gnostic]

There are several OEC schools of thought. Some include in their statement of faith a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible (and they give YEC advocates a good run for their money arguing on a scriptural, exegetical level, in addition to a level that includes observations in nature). They believe in God-caused creation without macro-evolution, but generally accept micro evolution (speciation). Reasons to Believe and Biola University are leading organizations in this camp. Others, like Biologos, adhere to theistic evolution (macro and micro). Intelligence Design OECers come in many colors, but the Discovery Institute probably captures the general arguments framework for most, and all of these groups have some variation in the extent to which they adhere to Gap Theory. Lots of room for discussion here...

Thank you, Socratic Berean.

That was enlightening.

Edit:

The whole problem with all these that require a god(s) or god-like entity (entities), is that you cannot detect, measure or test these nonexistent beings.

The whole point of science using the process of Scientific Method - is to test the explanation and prediction through repeated tests or experiments, to determine if it is true or is it false.

Creationisms (whether it be YEC or OEC) or ID, they are all unfalsifiable, because you cannot test the god, creator or designer.

 

[gnostic]

No, intelligent design is a fact.. we are doing it now and so much more in the future when we edit and improve our own DNA. Bio engineering.

No, we are not the creator, but we are intelligently designing on life and will change it..

My point is that intelligence to design could have predated us in 13b years.

No, this is different to the invisible Designer.

That we have bioengineering to work on DNA manipulation, and those in abiogenesis, performing experiment to spark life from basic chemical reactions.

These biologists, biochemists and bioengineers are actual people with family and friends, they research or work for living, they eat and sleep. They have their qualifications (degrees) and school records. They have addresses, phone numbers, social security number, they pay their taxes. These are all evidences of actual people who work in the fields relating to biology.

Those advocating Intelligent Design, especially those associated with the Discovery Institute, believing in a god which they referred to as "Designer" instead of "Creator". And they believer this Designer to invisible entity is powerful like a god, using blueprints for his creation.

This Designer is very different from biochemists and bioengineers, because the Design don't exist, so required faith to believe in its existence, and they manipulated established scientific theories in deceptive PR and propaganda.

What evidences do you have for Intelligent Designer?

There ain't any.

The ID advocates typically approach biology like this:

Life is complex, so it must have been designed, therefore it require a Designer.​

That's not evidence. No, that a very flawed attempt at logic, making baseless assumptions about the designs and its Designer - it is logic based on circular reasoning.

That's not how science works.

Science do use logic too, but logic alone is not enough to establish what is true and more importantly - what is false. And the only way to that is through observation. And the methods of observation fall under two main categories:

1. Tests or experiments - which involved working in labs.
2. Finding empirical and verifiable evidences - which involved working in the fields.

Both required the evidences to be observable or detectable, quantifiable and measurable.

There are no science involved in Intelligent Design, because they don't use Scientific Method to find and test evidences.

You can't observe a Designer. You cannot measure the Designer. You cannot test the Designer. If these being the case, then nothing about Intelligent Design involved science.

My point is that intelligence to design could have predated us in 13b years.

This here, is exactly what unsubstantiated assumption is, which I would call - "blind faith", "wishful thinking", "pseudoscience fantasy".

You have no evidences that Designer exist. You cannot detect, measure or test a Designer.

 

[Skwim]

There are several OEC schools of thought. Some include in their statement of faith a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible (and they give YEC advocates a good run for their money arguing on a scriptural, exegetical level, in addition to a level that includes observations in nature). They believe in God-caused creation without macro-evolution, but generally accept micro evolution (speciation). Reasons to Believe and Biola University are leading organizations in this camp. Others, like Biologos, adhere to theistic evolution (macro and micro). Intelligence Design OECers come in many colors, but the Discovery Institute probably captures the general arguments framework for most, and all of these groups have some variation in the extent to which they adhere to Gap Theory. Lots of room for discussion here...

Note of correction, speciation, the formation of new species in the course of evolution, is an example of macro-evolution.

.

.

 

[Dell]

No, this is different to the invisible Designer.

That we have bioengineering to work on DNA manipulation, and those in abiogenesis, performing experiment to spark life from basic chemical reactions.

These biologists, biochemists and bioengineers are actual people with family and friends, they research or work for living, they eat and sleep. They have their qualifications (degrees) and school records. They have addresses, phone numbers, social security number, they pay their taxes. These are all evidences of actual people who work in the fields relating to biology.

Those advocating Intelligent Design, especially those associated with the Discovery Institute, believing in a god which they referred to as "Designer" instead of "Creator". And they believer this Designer to invisible entity is powerful like a god, using blueprints for his creation.

This Designer is very different from biochemists and bioengineers, because the Design don't exist, so required faith to believe in its existence, and they manipulated established scientific theories in deceptive PR and propaganda.

What evidences do you have for Intelligent Designer?

There ain't any.

The ID advocates typically approach biology like this:

Life is complex, so it must have been designed, therefore it require a Designer.​

That's not evidence. No, that a very flawed attempt at logic, making baseless assumptions about the designs and its Designer - it is logic based on circular reasoning.

That's not how science works.

Science do use logic too, but logic alone is not enough to establish what is true and more importantly - what is false. And the only way to that is through observation. And the methods of observation fall under two main categories:

1. Tests or experiments - which involved working in labs.
2. Finding empirical and verifiable evidences - which involved working in the fields.

Both required the evidences to be observable or detectable, quantifiable and measurable.

There are no science involved in Intelligent Design, because they don't use Scientific Method to find and test evidences.

You can't observe a Designer. You cannot measure the Designer. You cannot test the Designer. If these being the case, then nothing about Intelligent Design involved science.



This here, is exactly what unsubstantiated assumption is, which I would call - "blind faith", "wishful thinking", "pseudoscience fantasy".

You have no evidences that Designer exist. You cannot detect, measure or test a Designer.

I think the idea is DNA is programmed or coded. The only observation so far is that a complex program has always been related to a programmer or coder. Also testing can't be done with out a needed discovery to test around. We discovered dinosaurs or Neanderthals, we never tested for them first. We can't develop test for dark matter until we discover something to help us test it or for it. So maybe one day we will find extraterrestrial life or evidence that will give us some idea of how to test or locate said designer if exist. As long as a possibility exist of a designer that predates us, we can't disqualify it.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Note of correction, speciation, the formation of new species in the course of evolution, is an example of macro-evolution

Yes. Good catch. "(speciation)" should be "(variation within a species)"

 

[tayla]

I think you need to give us the definition of OE creationist. YEC is a commonly known term but OEC is not in my experience. I voted OEC anyway.

Is OEC only something Christians can believe in? Seems to me the YEC vs. OEC debate is about Christians infighting with each other about whether to accept an old traditional interpretation of the Bible or whether to update it to conform to modern science. Of course, once you update your Christian views to conform to modern science, archaeology, psychology, and the like, you are no longer Christian. At least that's what happened to me. That's why those promoting YEC are so adamant their view is correct.

 

[tayla]

Long story short, I think OEC can be defined as anything with billion year Earth timeline that is not Naturalism, really.

I think you have to also have an explanation for how OEC conforms with Bible teaching. For example, Hugh Ross does this by interpreting the 6 days of creation as 6 periods of geological history.

 

[tayla]

It sounds too earth-centric for such an grand concept as creation.

Intuitive observation.

 

[tayla]

Intelligent design is as much a fact as evolution is.

No, ID is not fact.

I think that only aspects of the physical realm can be considered facts, and this, only when the scientific method is used. Things non-material, things in the spiritual realm, can never be proved. This is, I think, one aspect of what it means to be an agnostic. I believe ID, and I think there is sufficient evidence for it, but it can never be considered fact in the way evolution can.

 

[tayla]

The whole problem with all these that require a god(s) or god-like entity (entities), is that you cannot detect, measure or test these nonexistent beings.

The whole point of science using the process of Scientific Method - is to test the explanation and prediction through repeated tests or experiments, to determine if it is true or is it false.

Creationisms (whether it be YEC or OEC) or ID, they are all unfalsifiable, because you cannot test the god, creator or designer.

Yes, YEC and OEC are both aspects of Christianity.

My view is evolution plus (there is a plus because no one has convinced me it is not needed) intervention by an intelligent designer (God) as needed. I think the only way this intervention could have occurred is by fiddling with the randomness of quantum mechanics, so that very unlikely things occur from time to time. But I admit that this cannot be proven because it is outside the physical realm, and only things in the physical realm can be proven using the scientific method. There is no corresponding "spiritual" method for learning about the structure and function within the spiritual ream.

 

[tayla]

You can't observe a Designer. You cannot measure the Designer. You cannot test the Designer. If these being the case, then nothing about Intelligent Design involved science.

Yes I agree. Yet I am believe in ID because I feel it must be true. There is more to living than that which can be analyzed by science.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes. Good catch. "(speciation)" should be "(variation within a species)"

Actually it should read variation within an undefined "Kind."

Hey, pass the popcorn, this could be fun too watch.

 

[gnostic]

I think that only aspects of the physical realm can be considered facts, and this, only when the scientific method is used. Things non-material, things in the spiritual realm, can never be proved. This is, I think, one aspect of what it means to be an agnostic. I believe ID, and I think there is sufficient evidence for it, but it can never be considered fact in the way evolution can.

There isn't any evidence for ID, because it is never falsifiable.

In order for there be evidences for ID, you would also need empirical evidences for the "DESIGNER", which don't exist.

And there have to be real empirical evidences to connect the Designer to the "designed".

All ID advocates do is conjecture the connection between Designer and "designed". Such conjectures are not evidences.

 

[gnostic]

Yes I agree. Yet I am believe in ID because I feel it must be true. There is more to living than that which can be analyzed by science.

Trusting in what you believe in, is called "faith", not evidences.

Faith in personal belief is very similar to believing in your own personal opinion.

 

[tayla]

There isn't any evidence for ID, because it is never falsifiable.

There is evidence, but it is not provable as you note. Nothing in the spiritual realm can be proven. Yet I think there is compelling evidence for various spiritual non-material claims.

 

[tayla]

Trusting in what you believe in, is called "faith", not evidences.

I just looked up the definition of the word "evidence". I think it applies as I am using it. And, yes belief in any proposition that cannot be proved via the scientific method is faith, not knowledge. But the scientific method relies on faith as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just looked up the definition of the word "evidence". I think it applies as I am using it. And, yes belief in any proposition that cannot be proved via the scientific method is faith, not knowledge. But the scientific method relies on faith as well.

What faith does the scientific method rely on? I have heard this accusation in the past and it always fails.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There is evidence, but it is not provable as you note. Nothing in the spiritual realm can be proven. Yet I think there is compelling evidence for various spiritual non-material claims.

Can you describe something that you would not count as evidence? It seems that you will call anything evidence.

 

[Audie]

I think you have to also have an explanation for how OEC conforms with Bible teaching. For example, Hugh Ross does this by interpreting the 6 days of creation as 6 periods of geological history.

The gappists and the yecs also say that their nuttiness conforms to bible teaching. So did those holding black slaves, etc.