Why do people laugh at creationist?

[birdan]

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."

No, science says there is no physical evidence that it happened as young earth creationism says it did. Further, science says that there is ample physical evidence to the contrary.

If you wished to say that the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago in 144 hours, but with consistent and coherent physical evidence that makes it look like it is actually 14 billion years old, science could not refute that position. But that is not what the majority of YECs are saying. I imagine that the conclusions of science about the origin of the universe conflicts with every religion that has any degree of specificity to its creation stories.

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 think you have that backwards. Science is not doing metaphysics; it is simply doing science. You seem to be trying to take your metaphysics (Genesis) and drawing science out of it.

 

[shernren]

I notice you didn't respond to me.

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.

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.

Ah, but you are trying to say that Genesis 1-2 is scientifically true, while trying to bypass scientific machinery to do so.

That doesn't work.

Either Genesis 1-2 is scientifically true, and that truth can be proved scientifically;
or Genesis 1-2's truth is not scientifically provable, and therefore that truth is not scientific, even though it is still true.

 

[gluadys]

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

How is insisting on a theological rather than a scientific approach yielding anything to the supposed superiority of science?

And this is my point. You are not doing epistemology, but avoiding the question.

So what is the epistemological issue. Do you want to promote the omphalos solution or not?

Which is fine if you are going to simply say evolutionary science is the ultimate frame of reference.

On the contrary that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

But, suggesting that you give deference to metaphysics and then answering us metaphysicians with the superiority of your view is a bit evasive.

I don't claim superiority in either physics or metaphysics--especially not physics. All I am saying is that you cannot answer metaphysical questions with science.

But if you insist on trying to, if you insist on posing your metaphysical questions in terms of science, then they will be evaluated scientifically, and you see the results.

Show that the scientific answer is incorrect. Or admit that the question is being asked in the wrong forum.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Indeed, why should it be? No matter how we receive revelation, all revelation from God is true. Why should we assume when we get contradictory stories that our reception of supernatural revelation is faultless while our reception of natural revelation is blocked with static?

Assuming that God does not contradict himself, the problem of contradiction lies in us, not in God and not in his vehicles of revelation either.

Well, prove me wrong. If the actions of God don't fit evolutionary science, they are regarded here not as unlikely, but impossible.

It is not a matter of science per se, but of evidence.

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.

Why should a metaphysical message from a metaphysical entity given to you in the privacy of your subjectivity be admissible as scientific evidence?

On what basis can this revelation be tested if not the same evidence that already falsifies Gen.1-2 as science?

Believe the spiritual revelation if you will. But if you want it to be considered scientifically, you have to bring forward empirical, not metaphysical evidence.

Then you still have the theological task of explaining the inconsistency of the metaphysical and physical witnesses. What does the Holy Spirit tell you about the fact that the physical evidence tells a very different story than Gen. 1-2? Is this explanation consistent with the testimony of scripture? with the received doctrine of the church?

Natural sciences as applied is used to judge such events as things that "never happened."

Science cannot say whether or not the Holy Spirit spoke to you. Science cannot say whether your report of what the H.S. told you is true or false.

Science can only say that the physical universe does not support a literal reading of a young earth rapidly created.

To me that is science doing metaphysics (and pretending not to).

No it is not. The scientific judgment is based solely on the physical evidence. It makes no conclusion about the alleged metaphysical evidence because it has no means of testing its validity.

To me the pertinent question is still "why would the H.S. tell me one thing subjectively and the opposite in objectively observed evidence?"

If you have no problem with that question, there is no reason for you not to prefer the literal reading of Gen. 1-2 to science. But if you want to insist that Gen. 1-2 IS science, that is another matter.

By your lights, the science may be telling a false story, but it is still the scientific story and it is only going to change via its own processes of acquiring and evaluating information.

 

[busterdog]

I notice you didn't respond to me.

Ah, but you are trying to say that Genesis 1-2 is scientifically true, while trying to bypass scientific machinery to do so.

That doesn't work.

Either Genesis 1-2 is scientifically true, and that truth can be proved scientifically;
or Genesis 1-2's truth is not scientifically provable, and therefore that truth is not scientific, even though it is still true.

I think the response to your comment is the same content I posted to Gluadys.

Can it be proven scientifically? Probably not right now. For the sake of argument, I will assume not. In fact, I am happy to make that assumption for my own purposes. It is simply is not either or. Should it be? I needn't answer that question.

I have never presumed to answer the question only one way. It has always been very clear that the evidence is mostly about debunking evolution/conventional cosmology, not modeling Gen. 1-2 scientifically. You get a whiff of that at times, but it has always been about what the Word says. That is mostly the YEC position here. I don't know anyone who wouldn't lay aside the evidence and defend their position on the basis of revelation alone. I don't know how you could be hear as long as you have and see the YEC position otherwise.

If it were either or, you wouldn't be a Christian. You have your foot in both worlds and both ways of thinking. You reason from faith on one hand and from observation on the other.

For the purposes of logic, nothing requires that you must have only one line of reasoning.



However, it is reasonable to question whether a discussion uses one line of reasoning or the other. If we put aside science, what do we have? I suggest that Gluady is closed minded on such questions since I am not seeing even the possibility of putting aside science. Now, if science is correct, there is nothing wrong with being closed minded in this sense. (And you known darn well that I am willing to return the favor, but not here in this thread and not in all cases.) But, if are simply looking at the supernatural (ie, an a priori literal, revealed Word), why must we be laughed at? The question is the basis for discussion and whether discussion is possible. If we are going to be stuck on our individual a priori's, then fine. But, let's understand what we are doing and end the confused discussions.

 

[busterdog]

Why should a metaphysical message from a metaphysical entity given to you in the privacy of your subjectivity be admissible as scientific evidence?

I have not argued in this thread that it should be.

I simply say that you say science is not the judge of supernatural things. Out of the other side of your mouth you judge the six days of creation as impossible because "evidence" falsifies Gen 1-2.

That is science judging nonscience.

On what basis can this revelation be tested if not the same evidence that already falsifies Gen.1-2 as science?

Like I said, this is science judging nonscience. That is not my proposal here.

My question is simple: can people who choose supernatural revelation as their ultimate frame of reference get a fair consideration here of any question here according to their terms? Or are they simply regarded as wrong because science is the ultimate frame of reference?

Said otherwise, why indeed do people laugh at creationists?

Believe the spiritual revelation if you will. But if you want it to be considered scientifically, you have to bring forward empirical, not metaphysical evidence.

How many times do I have to say that I am not relying at all on empirical evidence? I am admitting for the sake of argument that you can have it all you way on such matters.

You keep pretending to have an open mind about supernatural things beyond the empirical evidence, yet all the while insisting that the empirical evidence "falsifies" the supernatural evidence.

And this is why you refuse to accept a literal reading of the text: it creates a dilemma. On one hand you are happy with you empirical case, but refuse to admit the slightest merit any opposing case considered on any other ground. That means your frame of reference must judge all others, yet you keep trying to convince YECs that you have an open mind.

Then you still have the theological task of explaining the inconsistency of the metaphysical and physical witnesses.

You said it again. You are saying they must be consistent. This means that science is the basis for judging nonscience. Are you hearing yourself?

See below:

Science cannot say whether or not the Holy Spirit spoke to you. Science cannot say whether your report of what the H.S. told you is true or false.

"Cannot" but "does" I suppose.

Science can only say that the physical universe does not support a literal reading of a young earth rapidly created.

Meaning that now you have to decide whether to reject a literal reading based on science or whether the supernatural evidence for a literal reading is judged by its own terms.

You will never admit the latter. What you will do is deny any possible content in the text for a literal reading to avoid the logical dilemma.

I am content to say to you that there are two different frames of reference: 1. human observation; and 2. supernatural revelation read literally. Can't you simply accept that choice 2. has a reasonable measure of internal consistency and let it go at that? I don't think you can. Your attack on choice 2. on the basis of 1. is relentless.

In doing so, what do you have? You have no room in your heart for any acknowledgment of any of the merit in any YEC argument. That means two things: 1. we should question why we bother doing what we do here; 2. by definition, your mind is closed.

Now, having a closed mind may not be a bad thing if you are right. The terms are detestable to some, but logically, we are back to the frame of reference question.







Do I do the same thing? Sure. I do think science should be judged on the basis of revelation. I wouldn't dare argue that here in this thread. This is a different argument altogether. But, I do think YECs should have the ability to argue science on its own terms.

Funny thing is, when we do that, your camp acuses us of being materialists. That is kind of crappy if you ask me. You should thank us for being willing to engage you on your terms.

But, for the sake of argument, however, I don't mind putting that aside and simply confining a discussion to whether science is internally consistent. I think E=Mc2 is brilliant, even if the whole c thing is wrong.

I will tell you what I think is brilliant about it, or for the CBR thing as a matter of fact, even if I think it is overblown. The evidence against CBR is not empirical, admittedly. I understand that. Much of the CBR rationale however is also not empirical.

 

[gluadys]

You get a whiff of that at times, but it has always been about what the Word says. That is mostly the YEC position here. I don't know anyone who wouldn't lay aside the evidence and defend their position on the basis of revelation alone.

Perhaps it is because old-earth creationism was the earliest Christian response to the discovery of geological ages, but many YECs do not seem to grasp that TEs do not differ from them in what the text says. They assume we are modulating a few days into billions of years when we are not. Many of us agree that the author's intent in using the term "day" in Genesis 1 was to speak of "day" as we use it in ordinary conversation: what we call a 24-hour solar day. (Note that that description would be alien to the author.)

So it is not a disagreement over a few words, but over the whole nature of the story. And that takes it beyond a matter of what the scripture says into the extra-biblical question of the whole matter of "literal" interpretation.

TEs are not asserting error on the part of the writer. They are asserting that the writer has not given us a description of the mechanics of creation, but a theological perspective on creation in a genre of writing normal for his time.

If we put aside science, what do we have?

If we put aside science, we have a beautiful revelation of profound wisdom.

I suggest that Gluady is closed minded on such questions since I am not seeing even the possibility of putting aside science. Now, if science is correct, there is nothing wrong with being closed minded in this sense.

When it comes to matters of science, there is nothing wrong with not putting science aside, even if it is incorrect. After all, no one is claiming that science has everything right yet. The errors will show up as science continues to be tested against reality. And science will continue to change accordingly.

Perhaps you are right to hope (though personally I think it a very faint hope) that science will eventually change to the point that a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 concords with science. But you have to agree that it does not do so in terms of today's science. And we have to deal with that discord in our generation.

But, if are simply looking at the supernatural (ie, an a priori literal, revealed Word), why must we be laughed at?

Because you are not just simply looking at the supernatural. You are making claims in the area of science that are at odds with scientific observation.

Out of the other side of your mouth you judge the six days of creation as impossible because "evidence" falsifies Gen 1-2.

No, I have never judged them to be impossible. I do judge them to be unscientific. The evidence does not falsify Gen. 1-2. It only falsifies Gen. 1-2 as science.

That is an important qualification. My question to you is: Can you accept Gen. 1-2 as true if it is not true as science? If your answer is "no" who is it that is holding science up as judge of the truth of scripture?

My question is simple: can people who choose supernatural revelation as their ultimate frame of reference get a fair consideration here of any question here according to their terms?

Absolutely.

Or are they simply regarded as wrong because science is the ultimate frame of reference?

They are not regarded as wrong because science is taken as the ultimate frame of reference. In general TEs do not take science as an ultimate frame of reference. But they will be judged wrong when they make scientific claims that are scientifically wrong.

Said otherwise, why indeed do people laugh at creationists?

Because, they make scientific claims that are scientific nonsense.

You keep pretending to have an open mind about supernatural things beyond the empirical evidence, yet all the while insisting that the empirical evidence "falsifies" the supernatural evidence.

As science, it does. I don't claim an absolute falsification.

And this is why you refuse to accept a literal reading of the text: it creates a dilemma. On one hand you are happy with you empirical case, but refuse to admit the slightest merit any opposing case considered on any other ground. That means your frame of reference must judge all others, yet you keep trying to convince YECs that you have an open mind.

What you are missing is that I don't reject the literal case simply because it creates a dilemma vis-a-vis science. If someone is willing to hold to a literal view in full recognition of the dilemma, I have no quarrel with that on a scientific basis.

What I do quarrel with is the theology that accepts the dilemma. It is not my perception of science that rejects YEC. It is my perception of God and my understanding of orthodox Christian theology down the ages that testifies to God as Creator that rejects YEC.

I do not accept living with the dilemma of discord between science and scripture because for me to do so is to reject the theology of creation. And it is that theology that is, for me, a more ultimate frame of reference than science.

You said it again. You are saying they must be consistent.

No, I am not saying it must be consistent. I am saying that when science and scripture (as you see it) are not consistent, the inconsistency must have a coherent theological explanation.

If you acknowledge the inconsistency between science and your reading of scripture, I am quite willing to discuss the theological terms on which you do so. I will admit in advance to disagreeing with those terms. But I do ask that you recognize that we would now be debating theology, not science.

Are you hearing yourself?

Are you hearing me? In the paragraph above?

Meaning that now you have to decide whether to reject a literal reading based on science or whether the supernatural evidence for a literal reading is judged by its own terms.

And again we come back to what is meant by "literal". If by "literal" you mean "scientific" i.e. the story describes what were in principle empirical observable events, yes, I reject it as a scientific reading, because it is not scientific.

But if "literal" means the sense intended by the author, then I contend that I do read it literally, for to me, a theological reading is the literal reading.

Then you speak of a "supernatural revelation" that a literal reading is correct. What on earth does that mean? It cannot mean that a scientific reading is correct. So in what sense is the literal reading, validated by supernatural revelation, correct? What makes it "literally" correct?

I am content to say to you that there are two different frames of reference: 1. human observation; and 2. supernatural revelation read literally.

And I would say there are probably several alternate frames of reference that you are not accounting for. Your box of 2 frames of references is too small.

Can't you simply accept that choice 2. has a reasonable measure of internal consistency and let it go at that? I don't think you can. Your attack on choice 2. on the basis of 1. is relentless.

Theologically, no, I can't. Because in my theological frame of reference the Creator has not sealed off the creation from human observation, but actually points to it as a mode of revelation.

This is what YECism rejects: that the created world is revelation. That is the basis for asserting the superiority of textual revelation over observation: that the created world is not revelation or is a defective revelation.

Of course, what is not stated is that it is not only the text per se that is superior to the work of God, but that it is the text understood "literally" i.e. as science, that is superior to the work of God as revelation.

There is no recognition of the Word of God as the origin of created nature on the same or similar basis that the Word of God is the origin of the text of scripture.

Nor is it just a matter that scripture alone is the vehicle of the Word of God, but also that one set interpretation of scripture is considered identical with the Word of God.

Now, I think all of this is meat for discussion, but again it is theological discussion, not scientific discussion.

The ultimate frame of reference we are both appealing to is not scripture, nor personal revelation, nor science, but our respective theological stances on how these work together.

I do not reject YECism for its bad science, though that has an impact, but because I reject its basic theology. And I rejected that basic theology long before I took any interest in science or had the slightest inkling of how far from science YECism stood.

But I am certainly willing to discuss it.

In doing so, what do you have? You have no room in your heart for any acknowledgment of any of the merit in any YEC argument.

Not for any scientific argument, no. Scientists do science. Scientists know what is scientifically valid in terms of today's science. And if some of today's science does not match up with reality, reality will let us know in due time.

I am well aware that there are aspects of reality that science does not know well and where it is struggling to form theories, such that all hypotheses in these areas must be held very tentatively. And that there are aspects of reality we do not know at all, and/or where everything we think we know may be completely wrong.

That does not in the slightest change what science is at this time.

But if YECists wish to argue the merits of their case on any other basis than science, I'm open. I'll argue hard for what I believe, but I will discuss with an open mind.

Do I do the same thing? Sure. I do think science should be judged on the basis of revelation. I wouldn't dare argue that here in this thread. This is a different argument altogether.

Well, start a different thread then. Because I think this is exactly what you should dare to argue. This is a key issue and worth debating.

But, I do think YECs should have the ability to argue science on its own terms.

I am not sure what you mean here? Do you mean on science's own terms? If so, you have to abide by science's own terms. Or do you mean YEC terms?

Funny thing is, when we do that, your camp acuses us of being materialists.

Wel,, when you try to justify a reading of scripture on the basis that it is scientifically valid, you are accepting that science is the frame of reference that decides what is real and true in everything, not just in science.

Just the other day I was reading a comment on Joshua's sun standing still. The author (Northrope Frye) noted that Immanuel Velikovsky had worked out a complicated scenario that would physically, scientifically "explain" this. Of course, he recognizes that Velikovsky is not mainstream science either. But the important point it the conclusion of his comment.

What I am saying is that all explanations are an ersatz form of evidence and evidence implies a criterion of truth external to the Bible which the Bible itself does not recognize.​

That is the point of the charge of materialism or scientism: it is you, yourselves, in your attempts to validate a scientific reading of scripture that submit scripture to science as the ultimate frame of reference.

But, for the sake of argument, however, I don't mind putting that aside and simply confining a discussion to whether science is internally consistent. I think E=Mc2 is brilliant, even if the whole c thing is wrong.

I will tell you what I think is brilliant about it, or for the CBR thing as a matter of fact, even if I think it is overblown. The evidence against CBR is not empirical, admittedly. I understand that. Much of the CBR rationale however is also not empirical.

For the most part, you would have to discuss that with the scientists, not me. Especially theoretical physics. I've learned a lot of biology and think I could hold my own there. I am fairly shaky in geology and totally lost in physics and chemistry.

My principal area of interest is the theology relative to science, not the science per se.

 

[shernren]

I think the response to your comment is the same content I posted to Gluadys.

Can it be proven scientifically? Probably not right now. For the sake of argument, I will assume not. In fact, I am happy to make that assumption for my own purposes. It is simply is not either or. Should it be? I needn't answer that question.

I have never presumed to answer the question only one way. It has always been very clear that the evidence is mostly about debunking evolution/conventional cosmology, not modeling Gen. 1-2 scientifically. You get a whiff of that at times, but it has always been about what the Word says. That is mostly the YEC position here. I don't know anyone who wouldn't lay aside the evidence and defend their position on the basis of revelation alone. I don't know how you could be hear as long as you have and see the YEC position otherwise.

If it were either or, you wouldn't be a Christian. You have your foot in both worlds and both ways of thinking. You reason from faith on one hand and from observation on the other.

For the purposes of logic, nothing requires that you must have only one line of reasoning.

Faith, perhaps, but in what? In your interpretation of Scripture, not in Scripture itself. One might as well never sing the Twelve Days of Christmas again before s/he finds the garden with twelve partridges in pear trees and forty golden rings.

The Christians of the early 20th century were every bit Bible-believing as you. And what did they say? In the 1900s William Bell Riley, a fundamentalist pastor of the First Baptist Church in Minneapolis, insisted that there was not "an intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the earth was made six thousand years ago, and the Bible never taught any such thing. Or take William Jennings Bryan, the guy from the Scopes trial, talking about the days of Genesis 1: "The only persons who talk about a twenty-four-hour day in this connection do so for the purpose of objecting to it ... they build up a straw man to make the attack easier, as they do when they accuse orthodox Christians of denying the roundness of the earth, and the law of gravitation."This he said in 1923. Were they reading a different Bible from you? Were they less Christian, less respectful of the role of revelation, than you? (All that "capitulation" came long before the Big Bang and radiometric dating, mind you.)

So you admit that there are no observations that tell you that the universe was created in six days six thousand years ago per se; you can find all the discrepancies in conventional science you want but they will never show you straight out, for example, that the sun is 72 hours younger than the earth. And if you laid aside all the evidence and defended your position on the basis of (your interpretation of) revelation alone, you would have just admitted that God has not left a shred of physical evidence for how He created the physical universe. You know how vehemently I oppose that sort of theology, even though there isn't a single scientific thing wrong with it.

However, it is reasonable to question whether a discussion uses one line of reasoning or the other. If we put aside science, what do we have? I suggest that Gluady is closed minded on such questions since I am not seeing even the possibility of putting aside science. Now, if science is correct, there is nothing wrong with being closed minded in this sense. (And you known darn well that I am willing to return the favor, but not here in this thread and not in all cases.) But, if are simply looking at the supernatural (ie, an a priori literal, revealed Word), why must we be laughed at? The question is the basis for discussion and whether discussion is possible. If we are going to be stuck on our individual a priori's, then fine. But, let's understand what we are doing and end the confused discussions.

And what, exactly, do you think science is saying?

If you think science is saying that evolution happened, then I have every right to say that you are wrong to go against it until you have a theory that better explains the evidence than evolution.

If you think science is saying that God does not exist, then you (and anyone who says so) do not understand what science is.

 

[shernren]

By the way, you have a very interesting interpretation of this thread here. In a thread entitled "You're crazy. Yes, I am talking to you.", busterdog essentially says that we are calling creationists crazy.

That's what I am hearing about us.

This thread I think affects us all.

http://christianforums.com/t6672848-why-do-people-laugh-at-creationist.html&page=8#post42404306

The proposition is that 1. Science does not presume to evaluate supernatural things; but 2. Science teaches that creationism is wrong, even if justified supernaturally.

The evolutionists seem not to perceive the contradiction. Maybe you can make sense of what is being said. I think it is just this simple: there will never be any ground ceded to creationists, not even on the basis of using a literal, revealed Word of God. You will not receive the benefit of the doubt.

One wonders why you couldn't have clarified it with us. If you were really concerned that we were calling you crazy, you should have told us, instead of reporting the news back at your cozy campfire where none of us are allowed to openly say half a word in overt response. I hope your position is defined by what you believe, and not simply by how vehemently you hate the wrong-headed other side, like countries that after years of war end up defining themselves as nothing other than parties of conflict.

I hope you realize how wrongly you've read us. You said: Science teaches that creationism is wrong, even if justified supernaturally. But what have we said?

No, I have never judged them to be impossible. I do judge them to be unscientific. The evidence does not falsify Gen. 1-2. It only falsifies Gen. 1-2 as science.

That is an important qualification. My question to you is: Can you accept Gen. 1-2 as true if it is not true as science? If your answer is "no" who is it that is holding science up as judge of the truth of scripture?

So you admit that there are no observations that tell you that the universe was created in six days six thousand years ago per se; you can find all the discrepancies in conventional science you want but they will never show you straight out, for example, that the sun is 72 hours younger than the earth. And if you laid aside all the evidence and defended your position on the basis of (your interpretation of) revelation alone, you would have just admitted that God has not left a shred of physical evidence for how He created the physical universe. You know how vehemently I oppose that sort of theology, even though there isn't a single scientific thing wrong with it.

If you wished to say that the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago in 144 hours, but with consistent and coherent physical evidence that makes it look like it is actually 14 billion years old, science could not refute that position. But that is not what the majority of YECs are saying.

(emphases added)

And none of us have called you crazy over the past few pages. Oh, I've quoted one person who thinks young earth creationism is unintelligent, and another person who thinks it is a straw man invented by skeptics to hound Christianity. But they aren't evolutionists; they're self-admitted fundamentalists, indeed the first few fundamentalists. Your own spiritual forefathers in the faith are harsher about your beliefs than we have been. We evolutionists will happily concede that you can believe in a six days six thousand years ago without a shred of physical evidence for it; it is them fundamentalists who would call you wrong in the head for that.

 

[busterdog]

By the way, you have a very interesting interpretation of this thread here. In a thread entitled "You're crazy. Yes, I am talking to you.", busterdog essentially says that we are calling creationists crazy.


One wonders why you couldn't have clarified it with us.

I did.

This is what you are saying:

There is zero merit in creationism. The only a priori is reliable observation. Since revelation cannot by your definition mee the criteria, there is no room for reasonable people to accept the other view. Reasoning from revelation is not valid, except where reliable observation verifies it (or at least does not contradict it).

If all of the foregoing are true, you should be calling us crazy. Now, clearly that was my choice of words not yours. I thought it appropriately mischievious. But, my post was a question. Does anyone see any other implication from this thread other than that we see little possibility of anything but rejection on the basis of an a priori frame of reference?

Why object that I make explicit what is implicit here?

As for the OP, it sure seems you do laugh at us. Not at creationism done badly, you laugh at the very premise of creationism because it conflicts with your first commandment: you must have reliable observation.

That is that answer to the OP. That's why.

So, what are we doing here?

 

[busterdog]

Faith, perhaps, but in what? In your interpretation of Scripture, not in Scripture itself.

Well, is that really your concern? Mohammed had a revelation. Do we take him at his word? How many revelations do you scrutinize for whether the revelation means what it says? By its nature, revelation is not really for you to parse and measure from the outside, is it? Not unless, as I assert, science does presume to measure the supernatural and pass on such things.

The Christians of the early 20th century were every bit Bible-believing as you.

No they aren't. One of us is wrong. One of us has to be. You keep saying there is this enormous equivalence even to the extent that science does not presume to judge the revelation received by the YECs here (yes, through scripture). But, every single one of those revelations is rejected as false. This is that nature of revelation: one group will miss the boat another will be favored.

you would have just admitted that God has not left a shred of physical evidence for how He created the physical universe.

 

[Mallon]

There is zero merit in creationism. The only a priori is reliable observation. Since revelation cannot by your definition mee the criteria, there is no room for reasonable people to accept the other view. Reasoning from revelation is not valid, except where reliable observation verifies it (or at least does not contradict it).

If vocal creationists truly held to a young-earth view solely on the basis of appeals to subjective divine revelation, I could live with that. Some people think the devil magically placed dinosaur bones in the ground, too, and that isn't something science can test, either. As such, these people can just be ignored.
But vocal creationists don't believe that their understanding of earth history is simply divinely inspired. They mistakenly think there is also objective scientific evidence for young earth creationism, and they either want these views taught in the science classroom or have evolution removed from the curriculum altogether.
So the point is this, busterdog... You stated:

The proposition is that 1. Science does not presume to evaluate supernatural things; but 2. Science teaches that creationism is wrong, even if justified supernatrually.

If young earth creationists held to their cosmological beliefs solely on the basis of divine revelation ("supernatural justification", as you call it), there is nothing that science could say to falsify such beliefs. But they don't. YECs want more. They want their views to have scientific merit, too, and so they open their beliefs up to the rigors of the scientific method, and it is on this basis that science teaches young earth creationism as wrong. It is the YEC envy of science that has lead to the ridicule it has received from the scientific community, and YEC promoters have no one to blame but themselves for it. Any faith that can be constructed on the basis of science can also be demolished on the basis of science. And if YECs are going to hinge their theology on the scientific validity of a single book of the Bible, then God help them when they submit their faith to the inflexibility of the scientific method and it all comes crashing down.

 

[busterdog]

If vocal creationists truly held to a young-earth view solely on the basis of appeals to subjective divine revelation, I could live with that. Some people think the devil magically placed dinosaur bones in the ground, too, and that isn't something science can test, either. As such, these people can just be ignored.

OK.

But vocal creationists don't believe that their understanding of earth history is simply divinely inspired. They mistakenly think there is also objective scientific evidence for young earth creationism, and they either want these views taught in the science classroom or have evolution removed from the curriculum altogether.

I think YEC works both ways. (But of course, the science of creationism certainly does not comprehend how it all happened. It doesn't have a model that compares to Big Bang in its comprehensiveness.)

But, if revelation is to be considered in isolation, I don't think this forum has much of any dialogue on that basis. Revelation is rejected on the basis of science time and again.

We don't get very far.

If young earth creationists held to their cosmological beliefs solely on the basis of divine revelation ("supernatural justification", as you call it), there is nothing that science could say to falsify such beliefs. But they don't. YECs want more.

Don't we all want more? I certainly do. But, regardless, we should be able to compartmentalize the issues for the purposes of discussion.

They want their views to have scientific merit, too, and so they open their beliefs up to the rigors of the scientific method, and it is on this basis that science teaches young earth creationism as wrong.

Even the consideration of evidence can be compartmentalized. That is the nature of curiosity -- to put aside preconception and explore. Lots of YEC is worthy of curiosity, even if it doesn't change your conclusions.

 

[Mallon]

But, if revelation is to be considered in isolation, I don't think this forum has much of any dialogue on that basis. Revelation is rejected on the basis of science time and again.

We don't get very far.

How far do you expect to get? When someone says "Last night, God whispered in my ear and told me that my interpretation of the Bible is the right one," how can you argue with that? If we can't make objective reference to experiences that we can all see and agree on, there's really no point in carrying on a conversation since we would all be talking past one another.
Hearsay is no substitute for reasoned discussion.

 

[busterdog]

Indeed, why should it be? No matter how we receive revelation, all revelation from God is true. Why should we assume when we get contradictory stories that our reception of supernatural revelation is faultless while our reception of natural revelation is blocked with static?

Assuming that God does not contradict himself, the problem of contradiction lies in us, not in God and not in his vehicles of revelation either.

It is not a matter of science per se, but of evidence.

I don't want to argue whether the position is correct. I just want to understand whether there is a starting point for discussion. I understand your position.

Why should a metaphysical message from a metaphysical entity given to you in the privacy of your subjectivity be admissible as scientific evidence?

On what basis can this revelation be tested if not the same evidence that already falsifies Gen.1-2 as science?

Prophecy as prediction can be tested -- but perhaps only to an extent. But, it demands to be tested.

Most prophecy is not above argument. God does not preclude argument. That is a choice. The Holy Spirit does not compel any conclusion solely based upon any logic. To that extent, God does avoid a full and complete testing either by the nature of how the Holy Spirit speaks or by the nature of human logic which is just at sea when it works alone.

Believe the spiritual revelation if you will. But if you want it to be considered scientifically, you have to bring forward empirical, not metaphysical evidence.

Then you still have the theological task of explaining the inconsistency of the metaphysical and physical witnesses. What does the Holy Spirit tell you about the fact that the physical evidence tells a very different story than Gen. 1-2? Is this explanation consistent with the testimony of scripture? with the received doctrine of the church?

Theologically, I am told not to worry too much about it. But, then again, that is revelation.

No it is not. The scientific judgment is based solely on the physical evidence. It makes no conclusion about the alleged metaphysical evidence because it has no means of testing its validity.

Rejecting a literal reading is testing its validity.

To me the pertinent question is still "why would the H.S. tell me one thing subjectively and the opposite in objectively observed evidence?"

Well, why should the HS bother if the pertinent facts are in evidence. That the HS does speak presumes that we have trouble with the facts in the first place. However, if reliable observation is a superior standard, one should reject the purported contradictions of the Holy Spirit.

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

 

[gluadys]

I did.

This is what you are saying:

There is zero merit in creationism.

You left out the qualifying adjective. There is zero scientific merit in creationism.

Do you see your sentence and mine as synonymous?

The only a priori is reliable observation.

Again, you need the qualifying adjective. The only scientific a priori is reliable observation.

Do you really have a quarrel with that?

Since revelation cannot by your definition mee the criteria, there is no room for reasonable people to accept the other view.

Note that as phrased the statement ignores created nature as revelation.

With that caveat in mind, then it is correct to say that revelation does not meet the scientific criteria.

Contra your conclusion, this does not mean there is no room for reasonable people to accept another view. However, they cannot claim the view they accept is scientific.

Reasoning from revelation is not valid, except where reliable observation verifies it (or at least does not contradict it).

No, reasoning from revelation is perfectly valid, as long as you have a coherent theological justification for why the revelation you are reasoning from does not describe objective observations of nature (which is also, in Christian theology, a revelation.)

But, my post was a question. Does anyone see any other implication from this thread other than that we see little possibility of anything but rejection on the basis of an a priori frame of reference?

I certainly see lots of possibilities in discussing the frame of references appealed to and how they relate/ought to relate to the scientific frame of reference.

There are lots of philosophical and theological issues we have barely touched on.

But perhaps you are too deeply wedded to the premise that your views must be scientifically valid to consider this worthwhile.

 

[gluadys]

Well, why should the HS bother if the pertinent facts are in evidence. That the HS does speak presumes that we have trouble with the facts in the first place. However, if reliable observation is a superior standard, one should reject the purported contradictions of the Holy Spirit.

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

Exactly. In Abraham's case the pertinent facts lay in the future.

And this is usually the case where scripture enjoins faith. It is closely aligned with hope.

Hope in a God who can change apparently impossible situations.

Extrapolating from that to apply it to what God did in the past is not warranted. The future is open to change; the past is not. We either have a natural revelation that is in harmony with a spiritual revelation or we don't.

And if you choose to believe that natural and supernatural revelations contradict each other, that has to say something about your theology in reference to the Creator, creation and scripture.

That is where the TE/creationist discussion really needs to be focused.

 

[shernren]

I did.

This is what you are saying:

There is zero merit in creationism. The only a priori is reliable observation. Since revelation cannot by your definition mee the criteria, there is no room for reasonable people to accept the other view. Reasoning from revelation is not valid, except where reliable observation verifies it (or at least does not contradict it).

Other than the excellent job gluadys has done analyzing that I must say that you've forgotten what I posted earlier on.

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.

To say that I said there is zero merit in creationism is a baseless accusation.

If all of the foregoing are true, you should be calling us crazy. Now, clearly that was my choice of words not yours. I thought it appropriately mischievious. But, my post was a question. Does anyone see any other implication from this thread other than that we see little possibility of anything but rejection on the basis of an a priori frame of reference?

Why object that I make explicit what is implicit here?

Well I think it is inappropriately destructive. You say that it is "implicit" - in other words, you have no documentary evidence that this is what we TEs believe about you all, and you are saying what you think we think. This is not the first time that you have put words in people's mouths (or fingers) and while I hope this would be the last, I don't foresee you changing your ways in the near future.

Have you ever considered the effects of your "little pranks"? You're at least twice as old as I am, if not more, if your online information is to be trusted (and I see no reason not). Shouldn't you be more mature than me, not less? You're proclaiming "TEs say we are crazy!" in a forum set up for the express purpose of excluding substantive TE input in discussions. You choose the most extreme, almost unjustifiable representation of our views to be put forth in an arena where we have no voice, filled with people who hang out there precisely because we are not allowed to be there. Can't you instantly see what that does? It is one thing if you people are engaging in violently erroneous scientific discussions; but when you people say the kinds of things you say about us, is it any wonder that we just have to stick our heads in and clarify? Why are you trying to demonize us? Why are you telling people what we believe in the very place where we can't correct you?

And not just there, too.

As for the OP, it sure seems you do laugh at us. Not at creationism done badly, you laugh at the very premise of creationism because it conflicts with your first commandment: you must have reliable observation.

That is that answer to the OP. That's why.

The first thing I did was to re-read the OP:

I found this series of youtube videos posted on an Atheist Forum. The title of the thread is the title of the video serious, and I'm not posting these videos to ridicule creationists. The video series does not ridicule creationists for being creationists, but the author of the video ridicules creationists by "showing" them as being wrong.

Please, don't take my questions or my post as an attack on your position, but I am sincerely interested in hearing your views.

Emphases added.

Who ridiculed the very premise of creationism?

Wasn't the OP.

Another baseless accusation.

Please check what we are saying before you say it back at us, will you?

So, what are we doing here?

No, busterdog, what are you doing here?

Just stirring the hornets' nest to see what comes out, again?

Please reconsider your ways. God's Kingdom needs shepherds, not ersatz entomologists.

 

[busterdog]

You choose the most extreme, almost unjustifiable representation of our views to be put forth in an arena where we have no voice, filled with people who hang out there precisely because we are not allowed to be there.

You're Crazy. Yes, I am talking to you.

That's what I am hearing about us.

This thread I think affects us all.

http://christianforums.com/t6672848-...8#post42404306

The proposition is that 1. Science does not presume to evaluate supernatural things; but 2. Science teaches that creationism is wrong, even if justified supernatrually.

The evolutionists seem not to perceive the contradiction. Maybe you can make sense of what is being said. I think it is just this simple: there will never be any ground ceded to creationists, not even on the basis of using a literal, revealed Word of God. You will not receive the benefit of the doubt.

That's demonizing?

Why are you trying to demonize us? Why are you telling people what we believe in the very place where we can't correct you?

I dealt with it quite unemotionally here and without extreme language. The funny thing is how you seem to like the name-calling better than the logic. It helps you to do exactly what my thesis predicted here: to give zero credit to any creationist ideas.

No, busterdog, what are you doing here?

Just stirring the hornets' nest to see what comes out, again?

Please reconsider your ways. God's Kingdom needs shepherds, not ersatz entomologists.

This shepherd says the "rod and staff" give comfort. I well believe it.

 

[shernren]

I dealt with it quite unemotionally here and without extreme language. The funny thing is how you seem to like the name-calling better than the logic. It helps you to do exactly what my thesis predicted here: to give zero credit to any creationist ideas.

Yes, you did, which is all the more reason to be disappointed in you for what happened over at Creationism. (Guess who reported that thread?)

In my dealings here I don't care just about ideas but about people. And the fact is that you are misrepresenting one group of people, who have taken great pains to emphasize where and how much they can agree with you (certainly not "ceding zero ground!"), in front of another group of people, who have purposely disallowed substantial contact from the first party in their own subforum. It's not just a matter of intellectual correctness; it's a matter of basic decency. (Or: if you cannot take our own words seriously and accurately, when we writers are alive and in contact and taking great pains to tell you what we mean, how can we possibly trust you to take the Bible seriously and accurately?)

You said:

I think it is just this simple: there will never be any ground ceded to creationists, not even on the basis of using a literal, revealed Word of God.

What have evolutionists actually said?

shernren: 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.

birdan: If you wished to say that the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago in 144 hours, but with consistent and coherent physical evidence that makes it look like it is actually 14 billion years old, science could not refute that position. But that is not what the majority of YECs are saying.

shernren: Oh, I believe that the six days of creation are real. Read my signature. I just don't believe that they are scientifically real.

gluadys: To me the pertinent question is still "why would the H.S. tell me one thing subjectively and the opposite in objectively observed evidence?"

If you have no problem with that question, there is no reason for you not to prefer the literal reading of Gen. 1-2 to science. But if you want to insist that Gen. 1-2 IS science, that is another matter.

Mallon: If vocal creationists truly held to a young-earth view solely on the basis of appeals to subjective divine revelation, I could live with that. Some people think the devil magically placed dinosaur bones in the ground, too, and that isn't something science can test, either. As such, these people can just be ignored.
But vocal creationists don't believe that their understanding of earth history is simply divinely inspired. They mistakenly think there is also objective scientific evidence for young earth creationism, and they either want these views taught in the science classroom or have evolution removed from the curriculum altogether.

I see ceding ground in spades. Don't you?

On the contrary, it looks like you have closed your ears and eyes to the possibility of anything good and true coming from an evolutionist. (Or can you show me even one occasion when you have ever accepted anything from us?)