1. bad_cook says:

    And all I can see is the response: “Of course he likes sci-fi, since Young Earth Creationism is nothing but science-ish sounding fiction!”
    But at least I can have a faint hope of pretending to fit into polite society.  Now I can deflect the conversation to sci-fi instead of starting a fight by saying how much I don’t care about YEC.

  2. Thought about that not long ago, bad_cook.

    Wrote this elsewhere:

    A demonstration.


    Instant rebuttal, though: it’s not “creationists” coming up with those sci-fi shows.

    • bad_cook says:

      …I don’t really see how that rebuttal’s relevant, though, because the mainstream scientists aren’t the ones coming up with the shows, either. I know from experience that you can’t watch “House” with medical professionals without them griping/laughing about the inaccuracies, and you probably can’t watch sci-fi with theoretical physicists without them doing the same thing at the applied-phlebotium near-magic that passes for “science” in the shows that do try to sound smart.

  3. Bainespal says:

    I agree, this is heartening.  I deeply support the original premise of the Young Earth Creationist movement — that human science is uncertain by its very nature and definition, and that Christian scientists and educators need not reinterpret the Bible to fit with the “findings” of mainstream scientists.  I love the Young Earth movement for standing against the arrogance of humanistic scholasticism — the attitude that naively assumes that the consensus of academic orthodoxy defines the truth.
    As much as I want to like and support it, the Young Earth movement lost me because, in my opinion, it has fallen to the same arrogance that it originally stood against.  I don’t like the sense of absolute certainty about the age of the Earth or the timing of the days of the creation week.  Even more than that, I detest how Creationists seem to make evolution out to be the biggest evil in the universe.  Some Creationist literature that I’ve read (in a magazine years ago, I forget the title or the author) even suggested that the acceptance of evolution is how true Christians can tell the apostate churches from the true churches in these end times, when the prophecy of the apostasy is being fulfilled.  I now understand that mainstream Creationism does not go that far; Ken Ham has admitted that believing evolution does not disqualify a Christian from salvation.  However, I do feel that the movement still promotes the implication that Creationist Evangelical churches and pastors are better than non-Creationist Evangelical churches and pastors, that not accepting the Creationist position is a serious heresy.  They’re doing roughly the same thing that the mainstream evolutionists have been doing for many decades.  They’re taking their scientific (and theological) consensus among the members of their own group and trying to enforce that consensus on the greater community as absolute, unquestionable truth.
    So, I’m thrilled to hear that Creationist leaders have more than one tune to play.  I want to see the Young Earth movement support the wonder of God that many people observe in the study of science, rather than fostering the endless debate and controversy.  (Let’s face it, the mainstream culture is never going to accept 6-8 thousand years for the age of the earth; Young Earth scientists should stop trying to “convert” people to something that is clearly not the core of the Gospel and simply enjoy researching what they believe to be truth, for God’s glory.)  More than that, I want to see Creationists promote intellectual honesty to the deepest extent.  The result can only help foster artistic honesty as well, and then Christian artists and scientists can rejoice together, no matter how old they think the planet is.

    • Lauren says:

      Yes, exactly yes!!!!
      I hate seeing the age of the earth used to divide Christians among each other. While I personally believe in a young earth, I see know problem with Christians who believe that God used slow evolution in creation. While an interesting debate, it should not be used to measure salvation.
      In fact, a close friend of mine, who is obtaining her masters in biology, admitted to me that she believes in an old earth, but that feels both sides of the argument should be considered. That is what the academic community needs — open discussion, not either side insisting that they and they alone hold the truth. We do not know, and it was not given to us to know.

  4. Galadriel says:

    I’d like to know classic vs new who myself.

  5. Jon R says:

    I have to disagree with the article. It’s cool that Ham has a sense of humor about being made fun of, but I feel like if he were to further divulge how his love for SF is God-glorifying then he’d be more of sociologist than scientist, as his message would be more about persuasion than presentation of data. He’d be more of a preacher and less of a professor if you will.
    Regarding young and old earth arguments, the Biblical crux of the issue is that death and decay are the results of sin, which makes a pre-Adamic fossil record incohesive with the gospel. Though I don’t think that philosophically disproves the age of the universe. Regardless, I enjoyed the post.

What say you?