What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[Everybodyknows]

My only goal is for creationists to finally learn what a "theory" means in science: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Well, that's just a theory...

 

[AV1611VET]

When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.

But that didn't happen, did it?

Creationists/ID need to learn that evolution is a tare that has been sown among the wheat; and it will grow and grow and eventually choke the wheat.

None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.

Yes ... the tares are choking the wheat.

It's a Biblical principle that is in action here; and it's working like clockwork.

All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.

Good!

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; ( for he is faithful that promised; )
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Are you bragging or complaining?

Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment?

That's not our job: that's God's job.

Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?

More or less.

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

To fulfill as much of the Great Commission as we can, before the Great Commissioner comes back.

 

[Divide]

When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.

None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.

All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.

Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

Huh. Yeah, isn't that somethin'?

I'm gonna need those dosage levels. I'm not sure if I should increase my dosage or cut the dose, lol.

 

[dmmesdale]

I agree. I was subjected to YEC arguments 50 years ago when I was a teen. These same arguments and citations are STILL being thrown about by YECs today. Indeed, the next generation has just picked up the same old arguments.

Right, you guys know better than Jesus, is that it?

 

[bhsmte]

When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.

None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.

All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.

Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

For many, the goal would appear to simply do anything they can and at all costs, to protect their personal beliefs.

For those who have a strong psychological need to believe something, you can see the evidence of how their defense mechanisms have developed to protect their beliefs; denial and misrepresentation of any evidence that threatens their beliefs, confirmation bias and all the symptoms displayed of cognitive dissonance, when they are faced with facts that threaten their beliefs.

To me, it is really quite fascinating to watch, from a psychological aspect.

 

[dmmesdale]

For many, the goal would appear to simply do anything they can and at all costs, to protect their personal beliefs.

For those who have a strong psychological need to believe something, you can see the evidence of how their defense mechanisms have developed to protect their beliefs; denial and misrepresentation of any evidence that threatens their beliefs, confirmation bias and all the symptoms displayed of cognitive dissonance, when they are faced with facts that threaten their beliefs.

To me, it is really quite fascinating to watch, from a psychological aspect.

This is not about you or your unsoliciated psych assessments which are really personal attacks.

 

[SkyWriting]

What specifically are you referring to?

Evolutionary theory.

"Random" is an unknown or unpredictable influence.
More and more "random" factors are being explained all the time
as actually being influenced by previously unknown processes.
There is no "random" process in the world that is not under scrutiny.

Engineers know....nothing is random, just a mystery.

 

[SkyWriting]

For those who have a strong psychological need to believe something, you can see the evidence of how their defense mechanisms have developed to protect their beliefs; denial and misrepresentation of any evidence that threatens their beliefs, confirmation bias and all the symptoms displayed of cognitive dissonance, when they are faced with facts that threaten their beliefs.

You'll have to provide more specifics and less preaching
before your claims can be considered.

 

[juvenissun]

What is the end goal for creationists these days?

Don't bother us.
That is it.

 

[Jimmy D]

This is not about you or your unsoliciated psych assessments which are really personal attacks.

To be fair he answered the question posed in the title of the thread, unlike you.

 

[Larniavc]

Don't bother us.
That is it.

That would be fine but cdesignproponentists want creationism taught outside of a theology class.

This is the problem.

 

[Speedwell]

Don't bother us.
That is it.

Now if the arrangement could be mutual, I think we all would agree to it.

 

[xianghua]

Yeah I think those arguments are used to disprove evolution and not prove creationism. You can't really prove creationism

i dont think so, as you can check in my signature link.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you asserting this to be true globally? If so would you provide some support for it.

Yes. This generation has the smallest percentage of population
involved in war in history.

 

[SkyWriting]

i dont think so, as you can check in my signature link.

It's impossible to provide data for a supernatural force.
If you could provide data to support your position,
then it would be of natural origin.

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionary theory.

"Random" is an unknown or unpredictable influence.
More and more "random" factors are being explained all the time
as actually being influenced by previously unknown processes.
There is no "random" process in the world that is not under scrutiny.

But again, what specifically are you referring to? Evolutionary theory and biology is extremely broad, so can you narrow it down a bit more?

 

[pitabread]

Don't bother us.
That is it.

Generally the backlash comes as a result of creationists trying to influence the education system.

If it wasn't for the fight over education, I don't think nearly as many people would care what creationists do.

 

[SkyWriting]

the problem that creationism carries is that future would-be scientists are set at a HUGE Disadvantage if they ever intend to turn to a career in science and research, a forefront industry that dictates the future economic success of a nation. Creationism and other anti-science efforts are an impediment to that future.

Evidently, you are continuing to ignore the facts:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
ESTABLISHED BY
CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[SkyWriting]

But again, what specifically are you referring to? Evolutionary theory and biology is extremely broad, so can you narrow it down a bit more?

The breath of the field has no bearing.
Can you support the development of new random
concepts in any way at all, in any field?

I'll help you get started:
random - PMC - NCBI

 

[Saucy]

That would be fine but cdesignproponentists want creationism taught outside of a theology class.

This is the problem.

Why is it a problem? Isn't that was real science should be about? It shouldn't be a monopoly on what it thinks is the truth. If there are different views out there, they should be represented and revealed.

I don't see creationism as anti-science. Believe it or not (which you obviously don't), there are plenty of PhD scientists, in biological studies and the like, who are creationists. Many work at the creation museum. There are different organizations all around the world with REAL scientists working with them.

I know it doesn't jive with your particular worldview and all of that, but what is the harm in admitting, "we still don't have all the answers. There's a lot we may never find out about our origins. The science changes and evolves all the time."