Recently, I've had a few opportunities to converse on-line with a few YEC's - that is: Young Earth Creationists. These conversations have been quite frustrating, as none of the folks I have come in contact with are willing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong in treating the Book of Genesis as a literal science text.
What got me so upset, I think, was when I was accused of being dogmatic in my opposition to their ideas and in refusing to consider that the Book of Genesis might be right.
Excuse me? We're talking about a book that's obviously a record of myths that were collected from a race of primitive, pastoral people around 3000 years ago. If there's any call for trying to reconcile the observations and theoretical work of modern science with such a book outside of a religious setting, I'd surely like to know about it. If your desire to prove the Genesis account as literal doesn't arise from your religion, fine. Look at the data and check the evidence logically and objectively. And be honest in your willingness to toss it out if the evidence shows you wrong.
But that's what bothers me most about these religious kooks, I suppose. They want to use Genesis as a starting point for scientific research. What sort of "scientific method" is that? Why shouldn't real science start with observing nature? I've asked this several times, and not one YEC appears willing to consider such a radical idea as this.
This is because all current observations show that humans exist in a universe billions of years old, on a tiny, non-special planet where we live as part of the current generation in an enormous chain of life that started without us and will very likely continue without us long after we die out. This precious book of "revealed" myths simply can't be reconciled literally with the real universe, and that frightens the bejabbers out of these people.
So I'm "dogmatic." I admit it. I follow the "dogma" of taking the natural world and using only observations of it and reason to try and understand its structure and history. Perhaps this is an illogical way of approaching the matter. If any YEC can come up with a good, objective reason for approaching the problem differently, I'd like to hear it. On this offer, I am serious.
Otherwise, please take your silly ideas and your ad-hoc attempts to crow-bar the universe into the box you have decided it should reside in and place them all somewhere in which the sun never shines. Because no one of any sense is interested in seeing it.
Thank you.