Would it make more sense for Young Earth Creationists to simply say, "We acknowledge that science & tons of...?

...evidence suggests (to most other people) that we are wrong about the age of the earth and topics like the theory of evolution -- but we are simply choosing to TRUST OUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE over the claims of science and the non-biblical evidence."?



(After all, isn't the YEC position really one of epistemology and authority AS PRIMARY while the science is seen as secondary to the primary?)



======================================鈥?br>


OPTIONAL:



* Wouldn't such a statement be a better strategy of honesty which everyone could understand (even if most would disagree)?



* Wouldn't it be more honest and intelligent that the "deny the evidence" strategy and even the "lie for Jesus" strategy?



I thought about this after reading statements by Answers in Genesis scientist Dr. Jason Lisle [one of the few truly credentialed scientists among AiG and YECs, having a PhD from a top university} who has said something like, "Even if all the science was indisputable, I would still stand on whatever the Bible says." (Indeed, it was Lisle's original quote along that line that has made Dr. Richard Dawkins go apoplectic about that mindset and quote it quite regularly as the viewpoint of the YEC movement in general. Of course, Christians like me would point out that Dr. Lisle's biggest problem is his failure to admit that his INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE [which differs from that of most Christians on various important passages] might not match what the Bible actually SAYS -- which is why he is only the latest in a long line of Christians over the centuries who endorsed ridiculous views which Christians would later scoff at and admit "The Bible never claimed any such thing as [flat earth, sun orbits the earth, earth sits on actual pillars, etc.]" Christians have usually come to the conclusion that their past interpretations were flawed or even arbitrary -- even though they seemed convincing to themselves at some time in the past.Would it make more sense for Young Earth Creationists to simply say, "We acknowledge that science %26amp; tons of...?
Yes, but those freaks are not interested in being honest. They are literally in the business of selling lies to gullible people. They want to keep people gullible and they know that science can educate people and make them less gullible. That's why they attack science because science is destroying their market.
It would be equally ignorant, so I'm not sure what difference it would make.

Edit: I love the cartoon, Dreamstuff ;) I put it on my atheist facebook group.Would it make more sense for Young Earth Creationists to simply say, "We acknowledge that science %26amp; tons of...?
Creationists are on God's side.
im hungry nowWould it make more sense for Young Earth Creationists to simply say, "We acknowledge that science %26amp; tons of...?
http://i.imgur.com/LTpDd.png
It might make more sense to you, but not to them.



Just because science may have insurmountable evidence doesn't mean that you should or could throw out what the bible teaches. It isn't just about the story, that maybe flawed, but the teachings. Old and New Testaments.



I generally believe the stories are the best rendition to what they actually observed, and were able to communicate via oral traditions through out the ages. That doesn't diminish the importance of the teachings embedded in the story. To fight over the semantics of who is right is missing the importance of each! What teachings does the science community bring to bettering the life of mankind.
I would tend to say that the more "modern" reinterpretations of what the Bible says are likely to be incorrect in light of when they were written. I have no doubt that Jews and Christians prior to modern times took their books of the Bible as completely literal as that is how they are written. Reinterpreting them in light of what we now know seem to be desperate attempt at rationalizing a believe in something known to be wrong.



However, it would be better if YECs would recognize the difference between their beliefs and what science shows. This would/should limit the scams of creationist books, DVDs and "museums."
Science has the advantage of being true, testable and verifiable.



Giving young earth creationist a seat at the conversation is like inviting a five year old to a whisky tasting. They cannot handle it, can add nothing to the conversation and it is or should be illegal.



Plus getting a young earth creationist drunk with knowledge is going to make them sick and ruin the party for everyone.