Why do people laugh at creationist?

[shernren]

The purpose of the comment was limited: what expectations should we have here?

If you are 100% right, you should do exactly as you have done. I will concede the point. And let me just confine that to 100% right relative to the YECs here, or even 95% right, which is virtually 100% right.

A separate argument is whether it makes any sense to presume that any position is 100% right.

Yet another argument is that is someone presumes to be 100% right, they must be at risk for missing something they need to know. Philosophically, one can argue as much.

Here, there is a range of issues. Its not just 15 billion versus 6,000 years.

I do not need to be 100% right to know when I am more right than another person. For example, I do not need to have a complete quantum chemical description of all known combustion processes to conclude that the phlogiston theory was wrong. You really need to read The Relativity of Wrong to see where your position stands.

 

[Assyrian]

The purpose of the comment was limited: what expectations should we have here?

If you are 100% right, you should do exactly as you have done. I will concede the point. And let me just confine that to 100% right relative to the YECs here, or even 95% right, which is virtually 100% right.

A separate argument is whether it makes any sense to presume that any position is 100% right.

Yet another argument is that is someone presumes to be 100% right, they must be at risk for missing something they need to know. Philosophically, one can argue as much.

Here, there is a range of issues. Its not just 15 billion versus 6,000 years.

I don't think anyone here would claim to be 100% right, at least not among the TEs. How could we be when there are loads of issues we disagree about among ourselves?

But the issue we have been discussing is not TE being 100% or 95% right, but YEC being completely wrong. It is not just claims of a the 6000 year old universe and that life did not evolve, but the rest are arguments built up trying to reach these two wrong conclusions.

 

[busterdog]

I do not need to be 100% right to know when I am more right than another person. For example, I do not need to have a complete quantum chemical description of all known combustion processes to conclude that the phlogiston theory was wrong. You really need to read The Relativity of Wrong to see where your position stands.

I am having a hard time believing that "more right" is the issue.

If this were a "relatively right" issue, the strengths of creationism would be acknowledged.

This thread is evidence that evolutionist don't think there are any strengths theologically or scientifically.

 

[shernren]

I am having a hard time believing that "more right" is the issue.

If this were a "relatively right" issue, the strengths of creationism would be acknowledged.

This thread is evidence that evolutionist don't think there are any strengths theologically or scientifically.

*hiss ... hiss* I find your lack of faith disturbing. *hiss ... hiss*



Sure creationism has its strengths. After all, it still teaches that God created the world. That's something important. It's hardly impressive among a community of people who believe that God created the world even if they aren't specifically creationists, though.

 

[gluadys]

I am having a hard time believing that "more right" is the issue.

If this were a "relatively right" issue, the strengths of creationism would be acknowledged.

This thread is evidence that evolutionist don't think there are any strengths theologically or scientifically.

You can't build a scientific case for scientifically wrong conclusions, as Assyrian said. And almost the only scientific argument I have seen from you is "we don't know everything yet". To which we can all agree.

Theologically, as shernren said, we all agree to creation. Personally, though I don't buy a literal Adam and Eve, I will acknowledge that possibility, so there you have another creationist strength. Maybe we can find others.

But specific items of belief are not really the point of theological difference. More to the point is the theology of what scripture is, what inspiration is, whether scripture is inerrant, how to discern genre and authorial intent, what role if any scientific knowledge should play in how we understand scripture, etc. etc.

I think perhaps here, the shoe may be on the other foot and it is creationists who do not acknowledge any strength in the TE position.

Perhaps on these matters we both need to learn to listen to each other more carefully.

PS, I would really appreciate more creationist input into my inerrancy thread. If you really believe in this, why not put some effort into explaining it? It is now housed in Christian Scriptures, but you can still get to it via the creationist sub-forum.

 

[busterdog]

You can't build a scientific case for scientifically wrong conclusions, as Assyrian said. And almost the only scientific argument I have seen from you is "we don't know everything yet". To which we can all agree.

Theologically, as shernren said, we all agree to creation. Personally, though I don't buy a literal Adam and Eve, I will acknowledge that possibility, so there you have another creationist strength. Maybe we can find others.

But specific items of belief are not really the point of theological difference. More to the point is the theology of what scripture is, what inspiration is, whether scripture is inerrant, how to discern genre and authorial intent, what role if any scientific knowledge should play in how we understand scripture, etc. etc.

I think perhaps here, the shoe may be on the other foot and it is creationists who do not acknowledge any strength in the TE position.

Perhaps on these matters we both need to learn to listen to each other more carefully.

PS, I would really appreciate more creationist input into my inerrancy thread. If you really believe in this, why not put some effort into explaining it? It is now housed in Christian Scriptures, but you can still get to it via the creationist sub-forum.

I hear a little grudging acknowledgment.

Suffice it to say that I think most creationists will be looking for recognition going forward.

Again, there is a frame of reference issue. The ultimate frame of reference is always a choice. No logic requires a particular choice. Even assuming a bad choice is made at that stage, lots of great logic can follow.

 

[gluadys]

The ultimate frame of reference is always a choice. No logic requires a particular choice. Even assuming a bad choice is made at that stage, lots of great logic can follow.

If the logic is indeed great, it should lead to a recognition that the original choice was bad.

 

[busterdog]

If the logic is indeed great, it should lead to a recognition that the original choice was bad.

Actually logic tells you that the original choice is arbitrary, no matter what that choice may be.

 

[gluadys]

Actually logic tells you that the original choice is arbitrary, no matter what that choice may be.

In that case there are no bad choices.

However, one could mistake a less than ultimate frame of reference for an ultimate frame of reference.

From the many creationist posts that speak of science as "absolute truth" or "100% accurate" there seems to be a misunderstanding that science is or claims to be an ultimate frame of reference.

 

[birdan]

I see.

So, let me ask you this: IF the science promoted by Creationist were so bad, then why do they do it? They are NOT stupid. What is the motivation for Creationist to teach church congregation bad science? or according to you, bad theology? What do they try to achieve? Have they got any success? Sorry for so many questions. But I want to know your opinion (since you started this thread).

To answer the question of why creationist organizations promote bad science, let's look at what young earth creationism would look like without it. I think ClearSky's posts (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42323455&postcount=35) present a good example. Yes, science produces lots of coherent and consistent evidence of an old earth and much older universe. And chances are that science will continue to do so in the future in more detail. But God made the earth 6,000 years ago to look much older. Or thoughts along those general lines.

So, what would the difference be between the above stance and the bad science that creationist organizations pump out? It is a social / political issue of marginalization. Without its bad science, creationism is marginalized in the social and political debate. There would be no issue about teaching creationism in biology classes, since there would be nothing to teach. There would be no grand conspiracies in the scientific community because science is simply stating the way things in nature appear to be. And there would not be nearly as much support among the general populace because the young earth creationist stance is now strictly a faith issue, one that acknowledges it is contrary to the appearance of reality, and a seemingly antiquated belief in a modern scientific world.

I also see the use of the umbrella word "evolution"as a marginalization issue. If young earth creationists said they not only don't 'believe' in evolution but also geology, astronomy, archeology, linguistics, paleontology, genetics, bio-chemistry, etc., and said that as forcefully as they use the alternative umbrella term 'evolution', they would garner much less popular acceptance and become more marginalized.

Given that the issue is not one of science, but rather one of marginalization, what then can we deduce about the goals of the creationist organizations' bad science? Clearly the goal is not to produce good science. The goal is to reduce marginalization. And that is done by presenting stories that seem (even slightly) plausible to people not well versed in science. The goal is to attempt to generate a controversy where none actually exists, thus reducing marginalization; to generate cocktail party level conversation talking points, not to produce valid science. One of the reasons these stories are bad science is because they are neither consistent nor coherent, but they don't have to be. They simply have to present a disjoint set of talking points, not science.

If all young earth creationists believed as ClearSky does, I most likely would not be reading and posting in forums like this one. Young earth creationism would simply be a belief and one that I could certainly respect.

 

[busterdog]

In that case there are no bad choices.

However, one could mistake a less than ultimate frame of reference for an ultimate frame of reference.

From the many creationist posts that speak of science as "absolute truth" or "100% accurate" there seems to be a misunderstanding that science is or claims to be an ultimate frame of reference.

This doesn't follow at all.

Logic alone tells you that it is all arbitrary, or at least that there is no a piori.

No matter what logic says, if the choice is bad from God's point of view, then it is bad.

Science cannot escape the indictment that it does claim to the ultimate frame of reference. I mean really, what are we talking about? If it were not so, the OP would be in the rhetorical sense that creationist deserve no laughter at all. If science wishes to give literal revelation through the Word the benefit of the doubt, I would love to hear it. But, it ain't happening from what I can see. It both 1. presumes not to study it; and 2. presumes it to be wrong. Not very logical.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Spiritual babes, are we? You know since what do we believe by default?

 

[gluadys]

Science cannot escape the indictment that it does claim to the ultimate frame of reference.

It can and does. Science has never claimed inclusion of either the metaphysical or the moral. So it has never claimed to be the ultimate frame of reference.

If science wishes to give literal revelation through the Word the benefit of the doubt, I would love to hear it.

From the scientific pov that would be making a metaphysical claim which is outside the frame of reference of science.

By the same token, it is also submitting scripture to a scientific (and scientifically limited) frame of reference, where it is appropriate to evaluate a literal reading of scripture by scientific norms. And within the legitimate realm of science, such a literal reading fails to predict observations correctly. Hence it fails as science.

But why do creationists want a literal reading of scripture to be scientifically acceptable? Is it not because it is creationists who are exalting science to the status of an ultimate frame of reference? When you creationists can wean yourself away from scientism, you might be better able to accept a revelation that speaks of what science does not, in terms that fall outside the framework of science.

 

[busterdog]

It can and does. Science has never claimed inclusion of either the metaphysical or the moral. So it has never claimed to be the ultimate frame of reference.


From the scientific pov that would be making a metaphysical claim which is outside the frame of reference of science.

Not so fast.

Whether it 1. CAN'T; or 2. WON'T include the metaphysical is beside the point. The fact is that it does exclude the metaphysical. Not only that, but having done so, it presumes to tell us what is real. Now, I don't wish to make a moral judgment here, just a practical one. The effect is partial truth without even giving the benefit of the doubt.

A practical or even necessary barrier to being inclusive is still a barrier to truth. Maybe you MUST exclude metaphysics to do science. Fine. But, what is the effect on how this discipline sees in terms of the ultimate frame of reference?

By being exclusive, this is the functional equivalent of an ultimate frame of reference. Of course for many atheists it is the acknowledged frame of reference. The latter is a separate issue.

What scientists would have to do is really be so very generous with the benefit of the doubt extended to miracles like six day creation, a literal Adam, paradise without death pre-fall, the flood, crossing the red see, the resurrection, pre-trib/pre-mil views of prophecy, a future corporeal paradise etc., and then we would really know whether or not it does claim to be the ultimate frame of reference. (Or the revelations to Joseph Smith and Mohammed for that matter.)

Does the six days of creation get the benefit of the doubt from anyone?

 

[shernren]

Not so fast.

Whether it 1. CAN'T; or 2. WON'T include the metaphysical is beside the point. The fact is that it does exclude the metaphysical. Not only that, but having done so, it presumes to tell us what is real. Now, I don't wish to make a moral judgment here, just a practical one. The effect is partial truth without even giving the benefit of the doubt.

A practical or even necessary barrier to being inclusive is still a barrier to truth. Maybe you MUST exclude metaphysics to do science. Fine. But, what is the effect on how this discipline sees in terms of the ultimate frame of reference?

By being exclusive, this is the functional equivalent of an ultimate frame of reference. Of course for many atheists it is the acknowledged frame of reference. The latter is a separate issue.

What scientists would have to do is really be so very generous with the benefit of the doubt extended to miracles like six day creation, a literal Adam, paradise without death pre-fall, the flood, crossing the red see, the resurrection, pre-trib/pre-mil views of prophecy, a future corporeal paradise etc., and then we would really know whether or not it does claim to be the ultimate frame of reference.

Does the six days of creation get the benefit of the doubt from anyone?

Oh, I believe that the six days of creation are real. Read my signature. I just don't believe that they are scientifically real. Therefore the six days of creation are no more real to you than they are to me, and you have no theological superiority whatsoever in your position.

Or will you tell me that the only way the six days of creation can be real is for them to be scientifically real? Then it is you who have swallowed the lie of science being the ultimate frame of reference for truth.

 

[gluadys]

Not so fast.

Whether it 1. CAN'T; or 2. WON'T include the metaphysical is beside the point.

Science cannot include the metaphysical because the metaphysical will not fit into the scientific method.

The fact is that it does exclude the metaphysical. Not only that, but having done so, it presumes to tell us what is real.

Not at all. An atheist philosopher may tell us that the only reality is one that fits into the purview of science, but it is not science that tells us that or makes that claim.

Or we have a creationist like the recent poster JAL who, having bought into scientism, concludes that even God must be physical. Again, that is a philosophical conclusion, not one forced on us by science or laid claim to by science.

Now, I don't wish to make a moral judgment here, just a practical one. The effect is partial truth without even giving the benefit of the doubt.

This is where we get to philosophical differences about metaphysics. The materialist disavows the very existence of the metaphysical and so takes what can be investigated by science as the whole of reality. You and I would agree the materialist is mistaking a partial view of reality for the whole of reality. But note that science itself cannot tell you who is right.

A practical or even necessary barrier to being inclusive is still a barrier to truth.

Only if you hold that all truth must be found within the barrier. Why is it not possible, when science has exhausted its resources to look for truth beyond science? Nothing prevents the human mind/spirit/imagination from crossing the barrier. Only the mind dedicated to scientism would see the necessary discipline of science as impassable.

Maybe you MUST exclude metaphysics to do science. Fine. But, what is the effect on how this discipline sees in terms of the ultimate frame of reference?

The whole point is that the discipline does NOT see in terms of the ultimate frame of reference. One has to go to another frame of reference--the philosophical denial of metaphysics--to turn science into an ultimate frame of reference.

By being exclusive, this is the functional equivalent of an ultimate frame of reference. Of course for many atheists it is the acknowledged frame of reference. The latter is a separate issue.

By being exclusive, it stays within its discipline. You are really confusing the latter point with the first as if they were logically bound together. They are not.

What scientists would have to do is really be so very generous with the benefit of the doubt extended to miracles like six day creation, a literal Adam, paradise without death pre-fall, the flood, crossing the red see, the resurrection, pre-trib/pre-mil views of prophecy, a future corporeal paradise etc.,

Not qua scientists they don't. Not unless you can bring forward empirical evidence on these "events" which is subject to scientific evaluation within the scientific method.

In order to provide this "benefit of doubt" one must already leave the limits of science for a more ultimate frame of reference. A scientist may do this---since scientists are human beings as well as scientists and need not always act in the role of scientist, but not within the discipline of science.

Why on earth would there be any expectation that science say anything at all about views of prophecy or paradise?

Why do you even want to bring these matters to the attention of scientists if not to give a scientific cachet to your theology? And what does that say about your theology, except that you need to have it validated by science---so you are the one turning to science as your ultimate frame of reference.

and then we would really know whether or not it does claim to be the ultimate frame of reference. (Or the revelations to Joseph Smith and Mohammed for that matter.)

And the fact that science does not and cannot judge on these matters confirms that either a) it is not an ultimate frame of reference, or b) as materialists claim, it is an ultimate frame of reference and all of these "revelations" are equally unreal.

Note again that science itself cannot distinguish between a) and b).

Does the six days of creation get the benefit of the doubt from anyone?

Of course. It gets the "benefit of the doubt" if your ultimate frame of reference is open to the Omphalos hypothesis. As apparently yours is.

But that does not fall within a useful scientific paradigm and is also suspect theologically.

IMO there are simply better theological bases for understanding the six days of creation.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
A practical or even necessary barrier to being inclusive is still a barrier to truth.

Gluadys:

Only if you hold that all truth must be found within the barrier. Why is it not possible, when science has exhausted its resources to look for truth beyond science? Nothing prevents the human mind/spirit/imagination from crossing the barrier. Only the mind dedicated to scientism would see the necessary discipline of science as impassable.

This doesn't meet the argument or the facts.

Science doesn't look at all reality by defition. Where it refuses to look it denies others the right to look or enter. (Reminds me of some scripture.) If it can't know some truth it should simply note with honesty that there is a lo t more truth it doesn't know. But, we never get that admission, except where it has not practical application.

 

[gluadys]

Science doesn't look at all reality by defition. Where it refuses to look it denies others the right to look or enter.

That's ridiculous. I haven't seen scientists preventing anyone from seeking truth in non-scientific areas. Scientists are not barring the doors to churches or libraries or theatres or art galleries or ethics conferences or schools of theology. You most certainly do have the right to look at all sorts of things science does not look at.

If it can't know some truth it should simply note with honesty that there is a lo t more truth it doesn't know.

And it does. We have repeatedly noted that science does not claim possible conclusions about the existence, action or will of God. Nor can it determine from a description of natural behaviour in animals how humans ought to behave in their social relations. Science cannot tell you whether we should change our way of life in the face of global warming. It can only tell what the likely consequences of any action or inaction are. It is still up to us to decide what, if any, action to take in light of the probabilities.

But, we never get that admission, except where it has not practical application.

Excuse me, but are you saying that ethics, inter alia, has no practical application? Are you saying that political decisions don't have practical consequences?

Now I know you think all of this is off-topic. But I think the pertinent question is whether you actually believe any reality is metaphysical. It seems you cannot acknowledge anything as real unless it is embraced by science. So you seek "admission" for your theology into the arena of science.

Science is not a way to know everything. But it is a way to know some things, and scientists do claim to know what is science and what is not. You want admission for your ideas in science? Show that they meet the criteria.

 

[busterdog]

IMO there are simply better theological bases for understanding the six days of creation.

Gluadys, this is a common answer. Most questions seem to get resolved by the superiority of evolutionary science.

And this is my point. You are not doing epistemology, but avoiding the question. Which is fine if you are going to simply say evolutionary science is the ultimate frame of reference. But, suggesting that you give deference to metaphysics and then answering us metaphysicians with the superiority of your view is a bit evasive.

 

[busterdog]

That's ridiculous. I haven't seen scientists preventing anyone from seeking truth in non-scientific areas.

Well, some atheistic scientists do. Focusing on what we are doing here, it is clear to me that the superiority of supernatural revelation is simply not on the table in this board as far as evolutionists are concerned.

We have repeatedly noted that science does not claim possible conclusions about the existence, action or will of God.

Well, prove me wrong. If the actions of God don't fit evolutionary science, they are regarded here not as unlikely, but impossible. A creationist gets zero acceptance here for any justification by supernatural events. I can say the Holy Spirit speaks to me of the literal truth of Gen. 1-2, but that is judged (yes judged) as error here on the basis of natural science. Natural sciences as applied is used to judge such events as things that "never happened."

To me that is science doing metaphysics (and pretending not to). That is not science deferring judgment about metaphysics. And lets be clear that evolutionsts again and again say that science does not presume to judge metaphysical questions. But that ain't the practice.

I am seeing talk about the benefit of the doubt, but I am not seeing any real benefits.