Jeff250 wrote:I'm curious though--What experience has led you to believe that most young-earth creationists are old-universe?
I was educated in a private school system where Young Earth Creationism was taught. The ONLY theory being expounded there was:
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That these two verses imply that the creation of the entire universe happened first, then at some point in time, probably MUCH later, when "earth was without form, and void", God spent six days reshaping the earth and populating it with life, then rested on the seventh.
You will note that on day three:
Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
The "He made the stars also", is added almost as an after thought, leaving wide open the possibility they were created previously and are mentioned here not to state when they were created, but just to assert that they WERE created.
I've also heard this "Young Earth" view from other young earth creationists besides those I grew up around. I've run into the more radical "Young Universe" view occasionally, but much less often. And, (no offence intended), but usually among those less educated in science. It's a view that's easier to hold if you haven't actually THOUGHT about it much. The Young Earth view has its own difficulties, of course, but they aren't quite as glaringly obvious as the Young Universe view.
So personal experience would be my only guide for saying that the "Young Universe" point of view is rarer than the "Young Earth" stance. I wouldn't stake any money on the fact.
Jeff250 wrote:Evolution is the direct result of empiricism. Creationism is the direct result of a metaphysical presumption about the universe, like that God created the universe in X and Y manner, and then adding as many cheap hacks and "epicycles" to that presumption as necessary to reconcile it with observation.
I'll have to disagree to a certain point. IF the universe had been "created" out of nothing 10,000 years ago, AND,
assuming the creator did not deliberately attempt to make the universe look as if it had previously existed, evidence of this creation should be detectable by science.
For example, lets ignore the dating issue and look only at the Biblical statement that God created the entire universe out of nothing. Now if you were trying to support this statement before the 1900's, you would have had a difficult time doing so. But then looking at red shift, cosmic background radiation, and other factors, we suddenly discovered that the theory that the universe had an actual beginning point in time isn't so unsupported after all. Rival theories still float around, but right now it appears that first there was nothing, and then, suddenly, something.
Does this prove creation? No, Naturalists can (and have) come up with reasons for the Big Bang as well. They must defend their own philosophy as well!
But it is the KIND of evidence that should be looked for in order to build up a scientific case.
The concept of telling the difference between things that were designed, and things that happened by entirely natural processes, is a legitimately scientific one.
Foil wrote:So, (again back to the original topic), should public school math teachers be required to "present all the theories, and let the students decide"?
And the Libertarian still has to ask, Should there be public schools since they force this kind of decision to be made?