Common Ground

Why Young-Earth Creationists and Geologists Will Probably Never Find Common Ground 

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Reed and Oard Want Respect and Seek Common Ground with Geologists

In a conciliatory note, Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 17) admit that geologists that argue over different ideas within actualism (modern uniformitarianism) are able to be professional and work together. They even admit that disagreements between actualists are kept objective. I would generally agree with their observations. They then ask for the same respect for young-Earth creationism. Reed and Oard (2009a, pp. 13-14) also appeal for geologists (“uniformitarians”) and YECs to find common ground.

When individuals (like Reed and Oard, 2009a, pp. 15, 17) have to plead for respect and for a “place at the table” of science and a “level playing field”, it's often because those that plead really have nothing to offer the legitimate players. Over the past few decades, geologists derived the robust theory of plate tectonics and developed a powerful and consistent actualistic description of the Earth's history. As seen in almost every issue of a science journal and at conferences and other meetings, scientists openly criticize each others' conclusions and hypotheses. Criticism, skepticism and the overthrow of old ideas are necessary strengths of any science, and are responsible for much of the technological progress within our society. However, as long as the authors of Oard and Reed (2009) and other YECs refuse to seriously purge their profession of false and dogmatic biblical interpretations and oaths that poison free-thinking and science investigations, and as long as they refuse to allow their biblical interpretations to be critically reviewed and thoroughly examined and compared with all of the geologic and historical data, little common ground will be found. It’s obvious that both young-Earth creationism and science have conflicting core principles and, understandably, neither side is willing to compromise on them. The last time creationists made a major effort to find common ground with field geologists was in the early 19th century, and most of these creationists became convinced of an ancient Earth (Rudwick 2005, pp. 116-117). In other words, when YECs really look at the geologic evidence, they and their antiquated biblical interpretations lose.

Scientists also recognize that tolerance of differences of informed opinion is a virtue, but tolerance of error, dogma and groundless speculation is not. Respect and tolerance must be earned. Even though they don’t want to face this reality, YECs are nowhere near providing any more scientific evidence for their Flood geology, a talking snake and magic fruit trees, ex-nihilo Precambrian geology and a young Earth than astrologers, psychics, quack medical practitioners, faith healers, dowsers of petroleum or others that are trying to push their own ideas into science. Each of these pseudoscientific groups claims to have “rock solid” scientific evidence to support their views. They often list their “evidence” in their propaganda literature. In an almost conspiratorial fashion, they also sincerely believe that the media, government, industry, and academia unfairly conspire to suppress them and their “Truths.” They complain about a lack of a level “playing field.” They protest about not being given a “place at the table.” Too often when someone dares to be frank about their invalid evidence, flawed studies and bad assumptions, these hypersensitive pseudoscientists then strive to gain public sympathy by complaining that they are “victims” of “bigotry” from the scientific establishment. In reality, however, whenever the claims of these pseudoscientific and cultic groups are scrutinized in any detail, they rarely show a glimmer of validity (see the related essays at this website for numerous examples from Oard and Reed, 2009). While actualism produces solutions to environmental problems and finds valuable resources, these pseudosciences are ineffective and rarely achieve the results that they claim. In a small number of situations, YECs and other purveyors of the paranormal have patented unrelated inventions or derived some useful contributions and insights in a scientific field. However, in at least geology-related cases, these discoveries give no sole support to Flood geology or a young Earth, since they are just as compatible with actualism (e.g., Dr. Berthault's sediment laminae, also here) or even more so (e.g., modeling of helium in zircons). So when the supernatural arguments used by YECs are found to be no more valid than the arguments from astrologers, psychics, and other practitioners of the paranormal, this is not a groundless insult against YECs and this is not the fault of the skeptics, but it is a factual summary of their dogmatic attitude towards scientific research and their lack of accomplishments (also see “Begging for Money without a Track Record of Success”, and “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”).

Intolerance from YECs Creates a Lack of Respect for their Sectarian Agenda

Although I've witnessed many examples of cooperation and respect among Roman Catholics, evangelicals and liberal Protestants, I cannot say the same thing about most fundamentalist Christian groups. Fundamentalist Christians, which are often the strongest supporters of young-Earth creationism, are frequently exclusive and create rivalries and threats of excommunication among themselves that exceed any conflicts that can be seen among the politicians in Washington or in the halls of secular universities. One only has to see the intensity and subjectivity of sincere fundamentalist Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans when they argue over their Bible interpretations of infant baptism and their ultimate concern on how an individual gets eternal life. If fundamentalist Christians can't even agree among themselves over what the Bible says about their very basic religious issues even in the original Greek and Hebrew, how can they deal with scientists that don't want divisive, subjective and untestable religion mixed into scientific research?

References

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 708pp.