To Young Earth Creationists
I was browsing a Christian forum where discussion on evolutionary theory was taking place; of the eight who responded, just about everyone expressed flat rejection of evolutionary theory in favor of young earth creationism.
Yet, as many of you know, there are a variety of positions to take on the matter. Unfortunately, I personally know of some who have no hesitancy in expressing scorn or embarrassment for those who advocate for Young Earth Creationist views in front of hostile audiences. I would prefer that we instead assist by suggesting more effective ways to communicate with one's opponents than contribute to their personal defeat in what would otherwise be a noble attempt to earn some credibility for the theistic perspective. Plantinga may have said it best when he wrote, "The main idea isn't always to see what's wrong with someone's paper, but to see how you can help."
For my part, my humble advice to the young earth creationist would be this (which I posted in response to members of the forum): Approach the issue by recognizing where the front lines actually are, and then focus your energies on that. If the larger skeptical community isn't even convinced about the plausibility of a designing intelligence, it will do no good to begin arguing on any of the Biblical specifics--that includes literal 6-day creationism and a young-earth theories. If you begin arguing about those first, you will only be playing into the prejudices of an audience that won't even honor your comments with the time it takes to take them seriously. I can tell you, in the minds of many of your listeners, you may be labeled as someone with very strange ideas at best, and at worst, as someone who has altogether forfeited the entire debate.
Instead, start by assuming some of the presuppositions of mainstream science (old earth, even evolutionary events), and begin your challenges there. By doing so, you will not have necessarily conceded any arguments: you simply free yourself up to take on some of the more basic, yet more critical issues on which all else depends: Why does anything exist, rather than nothing? Is there informational content in nature that requires a designing intelligence?
Doing this will make your task all the more easier; first, you'll find many more professionals and thinkers who are willing and able to provide you with respectable research that's recognized outside of Christian circles, and you'll also be working on alleviating the very prejudices that make the more Biblically sound arguments seem implausible. Quite simply, we need more people who are conversant on these more basic issues than young earth creationists. It will be those who are well-versed on the more basic issues that will help pave the way for future generations to take the specifics to higher levels of plausibility.
One last thing... I suggest avoiding the "creationist" label. It's just unnecessary, for one. If something is designed, no one has to ask whether it's been created. Design is just as deadly to atheism, and "Creationist" carries a lot of prejudicial baggage that makes establishing credibility all the more difficult.
Yet, as many of you know, there are a variety of positions to take on the matter. Unfortunately, I personally know of some who have no hesitancy in expressing scorn or embarrassment for those who advocate for Young Earth Creationist views in front of hostile audiences. I would prefer that we instead assist by suggesting more effective ways to communicate with one's opponents than contribute to their personal defeat in what would otherwise be a noble attempt to earn some credibility for the theistic perspective. Plantinga may have said it best when he wrote, "The main idea isn't always to see what's wrong with someone's paper, but to see how you can help."
For my part, my humble advice to the young earth creationist would be this (which I posted in response to members of the forum): Approach the issue by recognizing where the front lines actually are, and then focus your energies on that. If the larger skeptical community isn't even convinced about the plausibility of a designing intelligence, it will do no good to begin arguing on any of the Biblical specifics--that includes literal 6-day creationism and a young-earth theories. If you begin arguing about those first, you will only be playing into the prejudices of an audience that won't even honor your comments with the time it takes to take them seriously. I can tell you, in the minds of many of your listeners, you may be labeled as someone with very strange ideas at best, and at worst, as someone who has altogether forfeited the entire debate.
Instead, start by assuming some of the presuppositions of mainstream science (old earth, even evolutionary events), and begin your challenges there. By doing so, you will not have necessarily conceded any arguments: you simply free yourself up to take on some of the more basic, yet more critical issues on which all else depends: Why does anything exist, rather than nothing? Is there informational content in nature that requires a designing intelligence?
Doing this will make your task all the more easier; first, you'll find many more professionals and thinkers who are willing and able to provide you with respectable research that's recognized outside of Christian circles, and you'll also be working on alleviating the very prejudices that make the more Biblically sound arguments seem implausible. Quite simply, we need more people who are conversant on these more basic issues than young earth creationists. It will be those who are well-versed on the more basic issues that will help pave the way for future generations to take the specifics to higher levels of plausibility.
One last thing... I suggest avoiding the "creationist" label. It's just unnecessary, for one. If something is designed, no one has to ask whether it's been created. Design is just as deadly to atheism, and "Creationist" carries a lot of prejudicial baggage that makes establishing credibility all the more difficult.