8

I'm interested in whether there are peer-reviewed scientific articles, particularly in respected journals like Nature or Science, that offer supporting evidence for Young-Earth Creationism. This inquiry follows up on the discussion at Do Young Earth Creationists believe the evidence for YEC is unmistakably conclusive if studied diligently, unbiasedly, sincerely, and open-mindedly?.

7
  • Your question is quite broad. What area of science are you looking for? Physics? Astronomy? Geology? Biology?
    – Geremia
    Apr 14 at 21:59
  • 1
    @Germia Can you point to a single example that supports a young Earth (about ~6K years old)?
    – Mark
    Apr 14 at 22:10
  • 1
    @Geremia In terms of areas, I'm interested in any area that provides compelling evidence for a young Earth, that has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
    – Mark
    Apr 14 at 22:12
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Edited.
    – Mark
    Apr 15 at 12:15
  • 1
    No, if ever good evidence were produced it would be punted with prejudice.
    – Joshua
    Apr 15 at 19:19

3 Answers 3

11

From the Young Earth Creationist perspective, there is no conclusive scientific evidence of a young earth. This is because Creationists believe that the true domain of science is the present, not the past (sometimes called "origins vs operational science".) The past is the domain of history, of testimony, or of divine revelation. And whenever miracles or supernatural intervention has occurred the scientific process reaches its limits; not that we couldn't still observe and model what has happened, but that because science assumes no miracles have happened, its analysis of the miraculous will only result in a non-miraculous explanation. And lastly, if God created a fully functioning and mature creation, then many Creationists say that we should expect our observations of the world to match what we'd expect from an earth much older than the age God revealed it to be.

For example, consider the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine. This wine appeared to be high quality aged wine. If that miracle happened with today's technology we could analyse the wine, determine its vintage, the variety of grapes, the barrels the wine was stored in, and so on. That would all be valid science, and yet it would tell us nothing about what actually happened. So when God spoke the world into existence, and when he sent a global catastrophic flood to remake the world, Creationists do not say that science can conclusively support the Bible's account of those events, because science must assume they did not happen.

1
  • 3
    Note that there's lots of debates within Creationism about the extent of the miraculous in events like the flood, ranging from it actually being entirely nonmiraculous, to the aftermath (the flood receding) being a fully natural process. Most Creationists do think that geology generally supports a recent global flood, however they would still admit that is origins science, not operational science. It's still developing a model that fits some evidence, not proof of anything happening.
    – curiousdannii
    Apr 15 at 0:18
5

Frame Challenge

If your definition of "reputable" is "run by the clique that systematically excludes anything that disagrees with their dogma", then I think you can guess the answer.

As to whether managing to slip something past the censors is a reasonable criteria for veracity, here are some quotes (from atheists!) you might want to consider:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Lewontin)

Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling. (Mazur?)

One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework. (Newman)

[P]eople are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they’re going to allow creationists to slip through the door as well. (Newman)

[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of "truth" — scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders. (Margulis)

Silence is the strongest weapon. The disregard for science's ethical principles is widespread. (Lima-de-Faria)

The journals you cite are run by "tribalists" who are dead set on keeping Creation as far from the public eye as possible. They are not neutral in the slightest. Therefore, the presence or lack thereof of Creation-friendly papers in such venues is unlikely to have any correlation to the veracity of such papers.


The Lewontin quote, from "Billions and Billions of Demons", is trivial to find. The others are from "The Altenberg 16".

9
  • 2
    I personally know Christians who have been 'shunned', even 'driven' out of their scientific communities once their faith (and underlying creation beliefs) became known. Their beliefs in no way impacted their ability to conduct their research or accomplish their jobs. Good answer. +1 Apr 15 at 11:35
  • @MikeBorden, there are any number of such "horror stories"... but opponents will of course claim they are exaggerated and/or that such "pseudoscience" ought to be shunned. That's why, rather than highlighting those accounts, I chose "hostile witness" accounts. You know there's a problem when even the people who are supposed to be on your side are complaining!
    – Matthew
    Apr 15 at 14:59
  • 2
    @Matthew Would you like to add an appendix with noteworthy articles published in "non-mainstream" journals? Assume, for the sake of argument, that I grant the frame challenge. Could you please cite a few journal articles?
    – Mark
    Apr 15 at 16:10
  • 8
    It would be helpful if you could provide sources for your quotes and also the full name of their authors. It is very hard to track them down, otherwise. For example, there are 128 different people with the last name "Newman" deemed important enough to merit a wikipedia page. As it stands, this is might as well be just a list of random sentences with no link to who or when might have uttered them.
    – terdon
    Apr 15 at 16:27
  • 2
    Upvoted for the basic reminder that these journals are defined by the absence of faith-based material so that even if they published anything faith-based it would be by accident anyway. Apr 15 at 16:35
1

In Science we only falsify hypotheses. That's the rule by which we try to build an understanding of how the world functions. It follows that the answer to your question and to any question of whether Science has ever proven anything at all is 'no'. Keep your faith, and prove that it makes sense by being a nice, respectable citizen, so that when you die your friends and family can provide conclusive evidence that it was so.

6
  • Such a good, succinct answer. +1 Apr 15 at 11:41
  • 1
    Welcome to Christianity.SE! and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others. I would also recommend reading the Help Center's sections on asking and answering questions.
    – agarza
    Apr 15 at 13:46
  • 1
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica Yes, but that's more convoluted. We produce and we falsify - hypotheses. Apr 15 at 16:36
  • 3
    Well, the sentence in your answer I was taking issue with is missing the "produce". Also, of course, we confirm hypotheses when we try and fail to falsify them. Therefore, we produce falsifiable hypotheses (other hypotheses would not be science but e.g. religion); we try to falsify such hypotheses; and we succeed with that attempt or we don't. Succeeding in falsification leads to an improvement of the theory; failing leads to greater trust in its predictions, i.e, its validity. (What you probably wanted to say is that science never proves; but the OP didn't actually claim that.) Apr 15 at 16:37
  • 1
    This doesn't answer the question of whether there's any peer-reviewed research that would support the YEC hypothesis - unless you simply meant to say that there's none, in which case I think the answer would benefit from stating that explicitly. Apr 16 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .