Are questions on a Creationist explanation for scientific observation on topic here?

Question

As an example this question has, as of this writing, 4 votes to close, and some critical comments.

I see this question as an example of a formula, which could be repeated practically infinitely.

That format would be:

How do (young-earth) creationists explain [specific scientific phenomenon which appears to contradict a young earth or other creationist doctrine]?

One comment on the question makes the claim:

This question doesn't have anything to do with Christianity - it could be answered just as well by creationists of any faith tradition. So I think it is off-topic for this site

I don't really agree with the sentiment of this commentator, as I believe Christianity does have a more or less de-facto monopoly on the concept of a young-earth. While there's certainly room in other religions (Islam and Judaism seem like obvious candidates, since they share the same Genesis creation account), Judasim has for the most part rejected the concept, and my impression is that Islam mostly takes a "we-don't really know or care" attitude.

But even if other faith traditions do support a young earth, no doubt their flavor is slightly different. Jews and Muslims won't use Romans 8 as support for a young-earth view, for instance.

And such questions would be either completely off-topic on Biology, Physics, or other sciences-related sites, or if not directly off-topic, certainly looked down upon, scolded, and without relevant YEC-experts around to answer them

So I think these questions should be on-topic here, and they should be encouraged.

Answer 1

These are on-topic so long as they can stick to "what Christian Creationists say about it." There can be no speculation or analyses of new science that is out. As this post says, we are not scientists and peer review is not the point of this site. The point is to lay down what Christians of all flavors teach, which includes Creationists, old and young variety.

I propose that when answering these kinds of questions, a primary source is required. You cannot give your own interpretation of the science. This is not a scientific site. You must use a primary, Creationist source to prove that what you write is something that Creationists do in fact teach. A link to Answers in Genesis should suffice for most of these.

Now whether any science discussed in such an answer is actually valid is not on-topic at all in any way. Any comments to that end are off-topic and should be deleted. Any ensuing arguments about it should be taken to chat immediately. Any clarification about the science itself can be migrated to Skeptics.se, Biology.se, Physics.se, Chemistry.se, Geology.se, or any other SE site where peer reviewed science is their business.

Answer 2

Thank you for raising this meta question; and let me come out of the closet as the quoted commenter who thought the Vitamin C question was off-topic.

My judgement was that the issue of defective genes is really about intelligent design, since it questions the intelligence of the proposed designer, and not YEC. In some respects the intelligent design movement is "Christian creationism in disguise", though they do try not to come off this way - but in any case, I felt that the question was more in the territory of "general philosophical questions" that did not seem to demand a specifically Christian answer.

That said, Rick actually did give a Christian answer (which I think is accurate in terms of being a common interpretation of the Fall, and one that has been used by Christians in response to the "poor design" argument) so I was probably wrong here. On reflection, I think I do have a bias against this kind of question as they tend to provoke fruitless arguments and speculation, so I've tended to treat them as having a higher bar to clear. My mental non-constructive-ometer was ticking up, as well as the philosophy-ometer.

Also, I'm personally very far from YEC or OEC. I've tried to vote purely on the merits of the questions and answers, in terms of how well they represent the stated viewpoint and whether they are well-cited. I have certainly upvoted answers which I strongly disagreed with on a personal level. Every time I do so, I imagine my wife (a biology professor) giving me a Look, so the memories are quite definite in my mind. It's impossible for me to be totally unbiased, and I hope others will be willing to call me out in a polite way if I am off the mark. For this question, I do not think that my opinion of the merits of intelligent design played a role.

I agree with what fredsbend says in his answer, as these guidelines should help answers and comments remain in the desired territory.

Answer 3

I'm going to go against the grain and recommend that we handle these on a case-by-case basis, but that we lean toward making these off-topic, and direct those users to chat. (If they have sufficient reputation to chat, that is.)

Initially, I agreed with @Fredsbend's take on this, since our usual advice for keeping things constructive is to limit discussion on what group X say, not whether group X is correct.

However, there are other factors to consider. The main one is that not all Young-Earth Creationists agree on everything. This is the same problem addressed in Is it valid to ask if “Christianity” teaches anything?. While there is certainly commonality, there isn't always a consensus. As such, questions like this are making the same category mistake, and are simply not focused enough to avoid becoming "list questions". (Ken Ham says X, Kent Hovind says Y, David Stratton says Z, etc.)

Beyond that, when you do find the common ground, it's often the same answer. Over. And. Over. And. Over. Again.

• We reject dating methods because...
• We interpret that data differently because we have a different set of root assumptions than the Naturalist
• The evidence for the naturalist view is not compelling because...

I understand that an argument can be made for keeping that type of question on-topic, but I cant get past the category error inherent in "What do Creationists say about Y?" It's simply not focused enough to avoid devolving into list questions, opinion, and speculation.

I also see a potential issue of trolls posting that formula question indefinitely with each and every "evidence" they can pick up from the Skeptics site for an old earth. I know it's not valid to close questions because they're annoying, but I really also can't see that being good for the health of the site.

The question, to me, boils down to "is it good for the health of the site?" I'm not so sure that this type of question really is good for the site.

Even among the Young earth creationists, answering distinct points isn't a doctrinal issue. The belief that the earth is young, created in six literal days may be doctrinal, but how to account for the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away isn't.