Am I a YEC?

Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D.
17 MAR 2012. Last revision 10 OCT 2018.

I have been a member of the Creation Research Society (CRS) since 1983. I am a life member. I have published, in pure creationary science journals, 21 articles. But, the answer to this question is NO, I am not a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) as defined "today" by the methods and conclusions presented by most of the present members of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) or the CRS. However, I am continually accorded this title. Such a claim is not a complete fact. I'm actually a "Strict Biblical Creationist." This means that I adhere to the strict (i.e. common) meanings of the appropriate Biblical terms when they were first presented by Moses (say about 1450 BC). That is, such an interpretation closely adheres to the known meanings of the terms as understood by the original scribe and audience. However, I still accept many YEC conclusions that do not contradict these strict meanings. With the exception of The Eden Model, all known creationary models directly contradict the Scriptures. These models include those presented by others who are not members of these two originations. I completely reject these models. Although I have informed members of the creationary science movement of their Biblical errors, they continue to present their erroneous conclusions based upon Scriptural contradictions.

Except for two statements written by C. S. Lewis relative to the universe and its relation to a "mind," my creationary science stance is neither based upon any written material presented by the ICR nor any articles or books, other than mine, that have appeared in any creationary science journal (Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), Journal of Creation (JofC)), or elsewhere. My models are obtained via independent study and analysis.

In 1994, the YEC community began changing its methods to include Humphrey's highly theoretical-physics approach employing hidden procedures that are not Biblically verified via a strict interpretation. This new approach tends to neither emphasize God's infinite power, higher-intelligence nor creationary divine nature as does material published previous to 1994. This approach actually contradicts Henry Morris' (ICR) accepted Eden period.

Through research findings, not relative to theoretical issues but based upon physical observation, I also have altered my creationary stance as to the actual purpose for the Genesis Flood and its after effects. I have not altered my stance that such a flood did actually occur. This is relative to the Scriptional meaning for the specific term "destroy" and the Flood. This term can be translated as "cast-off." Hence, in this case, the earth upon which we now recide came about by rapid formation and is consistent with the properties of the exterior universe. However, it conatins evidence for the Flood and the per-Flood earthly environment. On the other hand, GGU-model process do allow for our present earhly home to be a highly modified pre-Flood enviromnent. I have not, as yet, absolutely decided which of these two distinct models to accept. My acceptance will be based upon the presence of or the lack of actual physical evidence.

There are, of course, variations in the meaning of the term YEC. The term YEC, as used today, often contradicts the strict Biblically described Earth prior to the Fall and, as mentioned, attempts to sustain the notion that the earth of today is a flood modified pre-Flood Earth. This YEC approach most often assumes that prior to and, especially during the Flood, physical laws as gleaned today or slight modifications in these laws have led to the formations produced by the Flood. This modified Earth leads directly to the earth of today. That is, the entire earth and, at least, its Biblically stated local environment of today are merely Flood modifications of the original Earth.

There are variations as to which laws are the same and which are not. Some individuals assume that many physical laws, prior to Fall of Man, are also those we accept today. The same approach is applied to various creationary cosmologies. Indeed, today, various strict Biblical meanings are modified to fit the creationary models of others. It has been purposed, and is apparently accepted by the majority, that God has deceived us for many, many years. It is claimed that a completely hidden aspect of atomic-physics behavior is incorrect, at least during the Flood, and was altered by God. Such a hidden alteration has no Biblical support. Relative to many, but not all, fossils and artifacts, God has deceived us relative to their age. Indeed, it is further claimed that the older method used to determine such age is also false when the purposed Flood modifications are considered. However, purposed Flood modifications to a pre-Flood Earth do not, as yet, explain major aspects of the earth upon which we now reside.

I reject all atheistic-physical-law explanations for how the Flood was produced and that the earth of today is merely a product of either specific or modified regulations of this type. Rather, the Flood mechanisms and the earth of today that emerged from the Flood waters are exceptional examples of God's supernatural power. The GGU-model upholds the rationality of these events, where the earth of today is a rapidly formed ancient earth with very special features that are best explained as evidence for a previous "young" pre-Flood environment. But, again I mention that the original YEC notion is also viable.

My Eden model for Genesis 1-8 is apparently the most Biblically strict that exists. Each creationary process I discuss and each result they produce is an interpretation for symbols that appear within a mathematical structure. Hence, the statements are all rational relative to classical logic. As Biblically traceable, the ancestry age of the biological entities that existed prior to the Flood and, today, that have the Ark inhabitants as their descendents, when combined, yield a time period of between 6,000 and 7,500 present-day years. I accept this as a factual statement relative to the ancestry age for each entity carried on the Ark.

In general, I reject any approach to creationary science that does not display the ture "power," the higher-intelligence, the miraculous aspect of the Creator's creationary activities and the Biblical fact that originally the Earth, its local environment and the day-four created exterior universe are physically eternal. Further, many of the models presented today do not glorify God but rather glorify man.

Relative to the Bible, I am not a literalist. As mentioned, I am a strict Biblical creationist (SBC). If a particular Biblical word is not "obviously" to be taken as poetic, metaphorical or suggestive, then I use the "common" meaning of the word as understood at the time the word was first transcribe within the original autographs. This is the meaning understood by the vast majority and it, as usual, is contextually controlled. This is the linguistic rule of "reciprocation." That is, a word alters its meaning relative to those words contextually "near" to it. This often requires considerable research. (Note: It should be evident that details for certain future events may be only suggestive or entirely missing. However, it is deceptive to allow individuals during a particular Biblical time period to accept specific meanings and then to alter the meanings for a later group.)

Rather than continuing to discuss today's YEC concepts, it is better to consider my article that gives a brief account of what I do accept relative to creationary science.

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.