@fredsbend Any ID proponent would (somewhat) disagree with that. Materialism (which unfortunately has made itself synonymous with "science" in the popular mindset) cannot, by definition, acknowledge anything "supernatural". Real science can absolutely identify at least when the most reasonable explanation for something is "a rational entity did it". Granted, identifying that entity as God is more troublesome.

That said, I reject the supposition that Christians can't do science, which is essentially what you're saying if you insist that God is off limits. By that logic, we can't say that Nero, or Alexander, or Ceaser ever did anything, because we have only historical writings of these individuals. But we have a historical writing of God, i.e. the Bible.

But it sounds like you are equating "science" to "methodological Materialism". In which case "science" can't explain the origin of life or the universe, either. Nor can it explain logic or rationality.

@fredsbend In what way is it resting on those? As a theology, sure. As an origin story, it rests on recorded history and observational science. The evidence that life needs a designer is overwhelming. The evidence that radiometric dating is not the sure thing Uniformitarians claim is significant. Noah's Flood is a far better explanation for geology and paleontology. The problem with a "convincing argument" is where to start.

Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye gives a passable overview and is trivial to locate. I could also suggest any number of books. Otherwise, if you can ask a more specific question, that would help.

(Speaking, ironically, of glass houses...)

@Matthew Maybe I misunderstood your use, but I take materialism to mean that you value the material so highly it comes at the expense of seeking God. I fail to see the incessant repeating of a material argument against other materialists as a fruitful spiritual endeavor.

Rather, I see it as necessary for those that can't simply accept it, with the assumption they take the view that more fundamental dogmas fall apart without a YEC to support it.

@fredsbend Huh? Uh... no. Materialism basically denies anything that isn't physical.

Well ....

If our basic definitions are that far out of whack, then we're going to be talking past each other...

They are the same. Materialists "value the material so highly it comes at the expense of seeking God".

Perhaps as a result. Materialism is the a priori denial of God; the insistence that everything must have a strictly Material explanation. (Very, very similar to [Philosophical] Naturalism.)

To some, sure. In theory, yes. What people do in practice is my point. Can one not sin without first accepting a belief it isn't sin?

I'm suggesting this approach to yec is a distraction from spiritual pursuit. Not believing it, but the insistence that it needs defense in the scientific sphere.

Given the extent to which the Church is crumbling under Materialism, I'm far less convinced.

It might be crumbling for other reasons...

Perhaps, but what do you suggest? I suppose you're of the camp that YEC makes it impossible for people to believe?

YECs would ask how one is supposed to believe in Christ when "science" has all the answers such that God is excluded from the picture and the Bible is clearly a collection of fairy tales.

I find it... challenging to refute the YEC position in that respect when a historical reading of Genesis is clearly the most obvious (as even many atheists will attest), when there is clear evidence that YEC is correct, and when the connection between societal decay and Materialism is also quite clear.

I also don't understand what you mean by YEC being "wholly [a] matter of faith". Or how you equate it to Materialism.

You can be YEC, in fact I think you need to be for more central dogmas to be sensible, but you shouldn't care whether the bulk of science rejects it.

Nor should you be concerned that much of science predicts something else.

@Matthew I can agree there's decay, but reject it's mostly from materialism. Young people are the most spiritual craved in several generations. The problem is the current offerings are outdated.

I should perhaps declare I likely have a looser definition of spiritual than you do.

@Matthew At this point, I support a reformed Christianity, like judaism has. It doesn't exist in any meaningful sense, as far as I know.

@Matthew I'm sorry, my wording has them flipped (been traveling, tired). They rest on YEC, which explains the visceral reaction to threats (eg evolution).

@Matthew I remember watching it on live stream. Unfortunately, Ham came off as ridiculous when he gave up on proper rebuttals and clung to the dismissal "you weren't there". I was also disappointed he could not rebut Nye's napkin math that Ham's "kinds" theory would require not just setting a different morning bird on you window still each day, but a different kind of bird!

@fredsbend Ah, I see. I think most YECs would argue it's not "the bulk of science" (i.e. secularists), but other Christians that are the concern. Although there's an evangelical case to be made both ways. As to your other point, correlation is not causation and all that, but ~150 years ago, "science" was YEC, and many more people were practicing Christians.

@fredsbend Personally, I would strongly disagree. I've seen no evidence that "updating" Christianity is useful, and a fair bit that it's actively harmful. I would argue, rather, that what is needed is Christians that aren't compromising in their faith in an effort to "stay relevant"; that's the problem, not the solution. See e.g. the rise of Islam for comparison.

One point of note; Nye is on record trying to "win" by throwing out claims so quickly that Ham couldn't reply. The skulls slide, for instance, is completely baseless, but the way Nye presents it makes a response impossible, because you have no idea what he's actually claiming. Nye also failed to respond to most of Ham's claims.

@Matthew I certainly didn't mean to give the impression I was impressed with Nye's performance either...