> those who hold YEC beliefs have an inconsistent belief system
No, that is absolutely not what I am saying. Their belief system is, for the most part, logically sound, and so it is consistent. But it is violently at odds with science, and so they end up with conspiracy theories to explain why scientists believe in evolution so overwhelmingly. Conspiracy theories are improbable, but they are not inconsistent.
What is science in this context? Is it the scientific method? Is it the popular view among scientists as a whole (many of whom are not experts in areas they don't work in)? Is it the view of scientists in a niche? What happens when scientists in a niche disagree (they do all the time)?
I'm guessing you mean the popular view of scientists and most people see it conveyed through media, pop culture, etc.
If physicists believe/agree with/state evolution what's the science foundation to look at them as an expert to trust? Would I trust a mechanical engineers view on circuit design because they are an engineer just like electrical engineers?
Being curious I've read works from physicists who view an ancient universe and YEC (they really do exist). I've done this in good faith to try to understand how intelligent people with advanced degrees can come to different conclusions.
I bring this up to show the complexity, views, and assumptions to what we quickly call science.
Yes, though your use of the word "popular" puts an unfair spin on it. There is overwhelming consensus (like 99%) among working biologists (who are in the best position to evaluate the evidence) that evolution is true.
Yes, there can be complexity and nuance. But evolution is quite literally one of the least controversial issues in all of science.
Just that fact would make a religious person laugh their head off at taking their perspective. Even from an atheistic perspective, can we rule out the possibility of an echo chamber?
According to Pew, the percentage of scientists in biology and medicine who profess no religious belief (41%) is lower than geology (47%) or physics (46%). So your claim is questionable at best.
But for the sake of argument let's suppose it's true. So what? If you took a survey of astronomers I'm pretty sure you'd find that the vast majority of them are convinced that flat-eartherism is false. But that's not because they are prejudiced, it's because the astronomical evidence is overwhelmingly against the flat-earth hypothesis, and so it's hardly surprising that there aren't very many flat-earthers among people who study astronomy.
Likewise, the biological evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. That is why virtually all biologists, including the religious ones, believe it.
BTW, notice that religious belief also declines with age. This supports the hypothesis that the more you learn the less likely you are to be religious. And that is evidence against your (implied) hypothesis that belief in evolution is the result of atheistic prejudice.
---
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-a...
Being 22 as a senior, I would regularly head out to the bar at night and on the weekend. I got to know the TA for the class. One night he admitted that the professors would not let students going for a PhD get one if they had any religious belief of any kind. They only allowed atheists or strong agnostics through.
I've heard about this kind of thing happening. That was the first time I had someone in the system point blank tell me about it.
It's worth knowing there is merit to the accusations about the beliefs in this area being filtered or otherwise shaped.
And how would he know? That doesn't seem like the sort of thing a professor would confide to a grad student. It could end the professor's career.
I think it's much more likely that your TA was lying to you in service of his own political agenda.
In any case, it is manifestly untrue that this is widespread because half of all working biologists profess to hold religious beliefs.
If some news article suggested that biologists are not impartial because most are men of European descent, there will be pitchforks and bonfires in the ensuing HN thread.
Religious affiliation is just as irrelevant.
Young earth can be both false and logically sound, in that case it would also be the case that some of its assumptions or models need to be wrong.
Another example of a logically sound yet wrong theory is the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, if nothing else because by Fourier analysis it follows that you can approximate well any periodic orbit using enough epicycles.
Firstly, logical soundness has little to do with reality; here's a logically sound argument:
All mammals nurse their Young
Ducks are mammals
Therefore ducks nurse their young
Obviously the statement "Ducks are mammals" is false, garbage-in, garbage-out, but the logic itself is sound.
Now there was an entire field of philosophy called "Rationalism" that had a chief tenet that innate ideas and deductive reasoning was superior to sensory information. Rene Descartes formulated "I think therefore I am" because any empirical evidence of the existence of an item is suspect, but the logical statement that "if a thought occurs, then some being must be doing the thinking" is irrefutable.
Be aware that there are many epistemologies besides empiricism.
You hand me an egg to put in my own incubator and raise myself? Well someone swapped the duck while I wasn't looking before the mammary glands developed.
No,valid, not sound. Soundness is validity plus true premises, and any sound conclusion is true of logical necessity. A valid conclusion is true contingent on the truth of the supporting premises.
> but axioms don't have to correspond to reality for the logic to be sound.
False, premises being true is part of the definition of soundness.
> All mammals nurse their Young
> Ducks are mammals
> Therefore ducks nurse their young
> Obviously the statement "Ducks are mammals" is false, garbage-in, garbage-out, but the logic itself is sound
This is not sound, merely valid. A logical argument is sound if it is both valid and its premises are true. This is valid, but the premise “Ducks are mammals” is false.
Most of the views people have that they call reality are conclusions drawn from interpreting observations based on assumptions. They aren't repeatedly observable or a case where the observation is shows "reality" without interpretation based on assumptions.
This is how people come to different conclusions.
Learning to understand the different assumptions people make for all views was enlightening for me, personally.