The problem is that many YECs refuse to admit any non-literal interpretations of the Bible (except when waving away certain inconsistencies). They seem to fear a "slippery slope" wherein if you say, "this part of Genesis is metaphorical", soon you're flatly denying everything else in it.

Personally, I think that's a rather brittle version of faith. You then have to twist every empirical finding to fit this literalist framework, and you wind up pledging to fit the truth to your belief. For example, if you join the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), you have to sign a statement that the Bible is literally inerrant, and then you have to make all of your "research" fit that.

Reminds me of how the Soviets hammered plant genetics into fitting the good Marxist mold. That little adventure only cost them several million deaths from starvation.

I worked with an engineer who subscribed to the "Omphalos" (appearance of age) idea, i.e., that everything was created X thousand years ago with the precise initial conditions to match the appearance of the ~15Gy old universe. He was a smart guy, and he didn't say it was scientific. I don't really have a problem with that, as long as it's not pushed in a science class.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-27 08:25 ]</font>