I've seen the claimed analogy with Gnosticism before. I don't agree with it — I think it's a hostile misrepresentation of YEC, and that Gnosticism had significant other flaws not present even in the caricature of YEC that its opponents create — but this is, at least, in line with the sort of answer I was trying to get, so +1. (Also, the claim isn't categorically different from the YEC accusation of non-YECs putting "science" before God.)

I hope this post doesn't come across as saying YEC is a form of gnosticism, that's not my intention here. Instead I would suggest that a root 'intellectual' to the exclusion of dynamic view of truth is foundational to both Gnosticism and YEC. In other words they share a common ancestor. ;)

That's an interesting choice of words. "Dynamic view of truth" is a very postmodernist notion which many Christians reject, and which I at least believe is firmly non-Biblical. God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, others). God's Truth is real and unchanging. There is nothing "secret" about YEC knowledge, and it isn't that YEC is isolated, but that all non-Materialism (including non-Christians, e.g. ID) are isolated. And the Bible does say that Christians will be persecuted.

God's truth is unchanging because it is dynamic. Translating the Hebrew bible into English is an example of dynamic truth, not changing truth. Islam supports the static definition of truth that says God's truth is untranslatable.

In my experience, the 'secret' aspect is more a feeling (when I was younger I debated publicly in favor of YEC) than a method which is distinct from gnostic practice. But that feeling helps encourage separatist views of truth. YEC is also strongly connected in practice to versions of strict Calvinism or at least predestination/election. Only regenerated minds can know the truth about God, and this maps onto the experience of YEC believers in the sense that non-creationists seem close-minded and 'stubborn-hearted'.

I agree with the last part (and yes, that matches my experience). That said, this is the point where I refer you to 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 🙂. And, to a lesser extent, Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3-6.

You clearly are a good reader though because that is a very important phrase in my answer. I notice you describe ID/YEC as non-materialism. (1) I do not equate YEC with ID, most of what I say above doesn't apply to ID. (2) Non-materialism is gnosticism so I think you mistyped, but this is an example of the semantic confusion that YEC can produce.

Not saying the regeneration point is invalid, merely that they seem to come as a package deal which is psychologically fascinating, but not theologically problematic. If, anything, it points to the coherence of YEC with certain forms of Calvinism that makes it more intellectually cogent and appealing. Conversely, it makes it suggests YEC is more theologically entrenched than its exponents sometimes would like to admit.

@ninthamigo I'm not sure that equivalence follows. ID is non-Materialist. So is YEC and, yes, Gnosticism. So is TE. And your points about ostracism most certainly apply to ID as well as to YEC. (But, yes, they are not precisely the same.)

Intellectually they have some relevance to ID, but ID includes TE, so not nearly to the same degree. I don't agree that they are non-materialist either (although I see you aren't using that term in the way I understood it). Instead they recognize that the material world is inherently depended on some non-material causes. But in the incarnation we see how God achieves his goals - through Christ who was 100% man and 100% God. Furthermore it is through this same Word that God created the world.

Consequently, creation was not purely non-material, or purely material in a mutually exclusive sense. God the Spirit created the material world through his power and the formation of the world.

E.g. humans are made not out of nothing

but from dust, i.e. material

but they are more than dust because God's Spirit breathed on them a non-material soul

so not either/or but both/and

@ninthamigo "ID includes TE". Not necessarily. You can be atheist and believe in ID.

Okay, to clarify... Materialism, as I'm using it, is basically the categorical denial of anything which cannot be characterized as observable matter and/or energy. (I admit I basically lump it together with Philosophical Naturalism, as the distinction is slight.) So anyone that allows God (or any other "supernatural" cause) is non-Materialist.

The rest of your points look spot-on. A Materialist (who is necessarily also an atheist) would of course disagree with all of them 🙂.

"Science" right now is very much in the stranglehold of Materialism. The point I was making is that anything non-Materialist — not just YEC — is vehemently rejected and can result in ostracization from the "mainstream" community.

@Matthew ID is a broad category so yes, it does include most of Theistic Evolution, as well as atheists who find the exclusive-materialism paradigm lacking. Also, I figured that was more what you meant by non-materialism as you don't seem like an actual heretic ;). Finally, I agree that much of the scientific establishment is unjustifiably unsympathetic to 'supernaturalism'.

@ninthamigo Yeah, I'm actually not sure now what I was thinking when I wrote that 😛. As for "unjustifiably unsympathetic", I'd almost say that's an understatement. Deciding to exclude a category of explanations a priori, which might be correct has... issues 🙂.

I love something Hold To The Rod said on that subject: "Any system that decides to exclude a set of explanations before even looking at the data has self-imposed restrictions on its utility."

@Matthew On some level I agree. And the time may come when science will move on to some explanation other than evolution as seems to be happening with regard to some versions of the Big Bang. The difficulty comes from the way we learn and make sense of reality. We don't so much start from zero and stack true things on a pile of knowledge as, build our understanding of reality like a pyramid and the the higher the pyramid, the more dependent it is on its foundations.

But the higher one goes on the pyramid, the father from the foundation one finds one-self so that it is simultaneously harder for 'outsiders' to see the relevance of the foundation to the newer, issues, and more potentially destructive to the entire structure to remove the foundations.

That's why science moves in paradigms. Paradigms that are incapable of entertaining threats to its foundation for fear of tearing down the entire structure. Until a new paradigm comes, nothing can really be done, unless we can gradually find the loose jenga pieces and exchange them.

@ninthamigo ...which seems like yet another reason for Materialism to do its darnedest to resist loss of its foundation 🙂. Aside from all the spiritual reasons.

Going back a bit... I don't think I agree with YEC being associated with Calvanism. I do see your point arguing that one can only believe YEC by the power of the Spirit. I'm not sure I would take such an extremist position, but the argument is not without merit (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). I wouldn't connect that to predestination, however.

@Matthew I think this discussion has gone as far as necessary. Thank you for your question and your thought interaction with my answer.