Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Frank Robert]

Those are symptoms, what about whats behind it.

The scale assumes an intrinsic correlation between belief and acceptance of evolutionary evidence which are the only two variables on the scale.

 

[Astrid]

The scale assumes an intrinsic correlation between belief and acceptance of evolutionary evidence which are the only two variables on the scale.

That part seems obvious, so the thinking that underlies it is what interests me.
I'm not into cog dis or intellectual dishonesty if I can help it.

 

[Frank Robert]

That part seems obvious, so the thinking that underlies it is what interests me.
I'm not into cog dis or intellectual dishonesty if I can help it.

That gets into motivations. It is impossible to know what motivates someone else. I think it's possible to discern motivation from a person's needs but that takes interviewing the person or the person laying out their needs themselves. In my mediation work I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When the parties are able to recognize the basic needs of each other they are more apt to compromise.

 

[renniks]

Kind of like the Light of God shines through Nature from its source? Like a ray from the sun shines from its source?

I suppose. But nature is broken, so it's never perfect. What we see is a pale reflection of Eden.

 

[Astrid]

I suppose. But nature is broken, so it's never perfect. What we see is a pale reflection of Eden.

Sosum sez

 

[Speedwell]

I was simply pointing out to someone who said he wasn't a creationist that Wikipedia disagrees with him.

You are making a different distinction, I think, than the one suggested by the OP, which is as I read it, the difference between

1. A person who accepts the scientific conclusions about our origins as such whatever he may believe about the existence of God or His authorship of our being, and
2. A person who rejects those conclusions because of what he believes about the existence of God and His authorship of our being.

 

[Larniavc]

When I see you catch mice with a paperweight with bits missing, I'll take your point a little more seriously.

I got a rat once with a boot. That boot would have made a functional paperweight.

 

[renniks]

That is a fine sentiment and I agree, but what has it to do with the gap between creationists and non-creationists?

If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.

 

[Astrid]

If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.

Kind of a weird job, wouldn't want it myself!

 

[renniks]

What criteria would you use to identify something as built by a person?

I've never seen a machine of any sort build itself. I can't even get a light switch to repair itself... but I'm supposed to believe that DNA, which is infinitely more complex formed itself by random processes?
That's ridiculous.

 

[dlamberth]

I suppose. But nature is broken, so it's never perfect. What we see is a pale reflection of Eden.

From where I sit, what we see in Nature is God manifested.

 

[renniks]

Such points not to a creator, but to thee.

Funny how kids have no problem believing in God, but adults who should know better talk themselves out of it.

 

[Speedwell]

If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.

Whatever those implications are, they are in place and the material universe is what it is--which is what science is trying to find out.

 

[renniks]

From where I sit, what we see in Nature is God manifested.

Not in full. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Speedwell]

Funny how kids have no problem believing in God, but adults who should know better talk themselves out of it.

Which is neither hear nor there. The question of existence of God is not directly relevant to the OP.

 

[dlamberth]

If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.

It kind of changes things quite a bit. It would be such that everywhere one looks, there God is. That perspective would change how we treat the world and each other because we could see the Divine in them. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[renniks]

Whatever those implications are, they are in place and the material universe is what it is--which is what science is trying to find out.

I'm not anti science. But we are no where near getting there by science, which refuses to consider the possibility of divine intervention, let alone divine design at every step. it's like trying to put a puzzle together while missing the biggest piece.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not anti science. But we are no where near getting there by science, which refuses to consider the possibility of divine intervention, let alone divine design at every step. it's like trying to put a puzzle together while missing the biggest piece.

Which is to be expected, since science does not deal with unfalsifiable propositions.

 

[renniks]

Which is neither hear nor there. The question of existence of God is not directly relevant to the OP.

Oh, we are supposed to care about the OP?
I'm just having a conversation. It all relates in one way or another.

 

[Astrid]

Funny how kids have no problem believing in God, but adults who should know better talk themselves out of it.

"Into"