What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[AV1611VET]

Agreed -- the Bible contains some science and some history... but then again, so does The Wizard of Oz, so you might not want to hang your hat on it.

I'm supposed to suspect the word of God because some guy named L. Frank Baum wrote a book of fiction?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm supposed to suspect the word of God because some guy named L. Frank Baum wrote a book of fiction?

Did I say that? I'm just saying that containing some science and history is hardly exclusive to the word of God.

 

[FredVB]

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?

I see another desirable thing, instead of asking of a goal for scientists who are creationist, as their pursuits are individual for them. It is for scientists generally to not exclude any consideration of the Creator from any explanations no matter what, without basis. The beautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I say that? I'm just saying that containing some science and history is hardly exclusive to the word of God.

Just don't tell me It isn't a science book and expect me to disagree.

Whoever elevated It that low earned his/her Ph.D.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just don't tell me It isn't a science book and expect me to disagree.

Whoever elevated It that low earned his/her Ph.D.

But it isn't a science book -- no more so than The Wizard of Oz.

Expect you to disagree? Weren't you just agreeing that it wasn't a science book, only that it contained some science?

 

[Ophiolite]

I see another desirable thing, instead of asking of a goal for scientists who are creationist, as their pursuits are individual for them. It is for scientists generally to not exclude any consideration of the Creator from any explanations no matter what, without basis. The beautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.

This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism declares that science will seek natural explanations for phenomena. It does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but declares that such events are outwith the scope of science.

In essence, if the supernatural explanation is entertained it minimises the motivation to look further for a natural explanation. That rather defeats the purpose of science.

Moreover, phenomena previously assigned to the action of God, or gods, have been found to have natural explanations. Methodological naturalism just works on the basis that phenomena that are currently unexplained can be found, through diligent investigation, to have a natural basis.

That said, in pursuing this approach, evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it isn't a science book -- no more so than The Wizard of Oz.

Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.

Expect you to disagree?

Yes.

If you tell me the Bible is not a science book ... and expect me to disagree with that ... you've got another think coming.

Weren't you just agreeing that it wasn't a science book, only that it contained some science?

Yes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.

Yes.

If you tell me the Bible is not a science book ... and expect me to disagree with that ... you've got another think coming.
Yes.

The confusion here, over slightly obscure syntax, reminds me of the English lecturer who declared in class, "While there are many examples of double negatives, we never see or hear a double positive."
From the back of the lecture theatre came a bored, "Yeah . . . . Right."

 

[HitchSlap]

Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.

The bible is a glimpse into the mind of a despot.

Got it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The confusion here, over slightly obscure syntax, reminds me of the English lecturer who declared in class, "While there are many examples of double negatives, we never see or hear a double positive."
From the back of the lecture theatre came a bored, "Yeah . . . . Right."

LOL -- but we're dealing with a professor of literature here, who should have caught that.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible is a glimpse into the mind of a despot.

It is a ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That's why most people hate It so much.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think I have just got it AV. You hope to stretch this thread out long enough for End Times to arrive and the answer to the OP question become self evident. Like the man who kept those heavy cylindrical things that make grandfather clocks work, you'll have a long wait.

 

[HitchSlap]

and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. How does the saying go... 'you shouldn't have to tell people you're a gentlemen.'

 

[TLK Valentine]

Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.

Or calling The Wizard of Oz L. Frank Baum's diary.

Yes.

If you tell me the Bible is not a science book ... and expect me to disagree with that ... you've got another think coming.
Yes.

Which is why I expected you to agree... Which you do.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. How does the saying go... 'you shouldn't have to tell people you're a gentlemen.'

I tried that once, but no one believed me.

 

[tas8831]

Thebeautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.

The chaotic, brutal realities of biology imply that if 'design' is real, then the designer was a sadistic thug.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The chaotic, brutal realities of biology imply that if 'design' is real, then the designer was a sadistic thug.

The "designer" is scary, if nothing else. Have you ever seen a video of those massive parasite worms coming out of insects and arachnids? It would take a disturbed mind to come up with that one.

 

[FredVB]

I see another desirable thing, instead of asking of a goal for scientists who are creationist, as their pursuits are individual for them. It is for scientists generally to not exclude any consideration of the Creator from any explanations no matter what, without basis. The beautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.

This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism declares that science will seek natural explanations for phenomena. It does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but declares that such events are outwith the scope of science.

In essence, if the supernatural explanation is entertained it minimises the motivation to look further for a natural explanation. That rather defeats the purpose of science.

Moreover, phenomena previously assigned to the action of God, or gods, have been found to have natural explanations. Methodological naturalism just works on the basis that phenomena that are currently unexplained can be found, through diligent investigation, to have a natural basis.

That said, in pursuing this approach, evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far.

If natural explanations are sought for everything, that is excluding design that there is, and the Creator, some things can be concluded wrongly even with such exclusion. The explanation with multiple universes for instance has no evidence for basis and is with just such exclusion. That is outside the realm of natural explanations, with no verification.

If compassion to insects and spiders is not something showing from you, there isn't great basis to criticize the Creator we recognize for such circumstances, while we explain anyway how there are such troubles from this being a world fallen in corruption.

 

[Speedwell]

If natural explanations are sought for everything, that is excluding design that there is, and the Creator, some things can be concluded wrongly even with such exclusion.

Naturalistic explanations are not being sought in order to exclude the supernatural. Explanations are being sought which can be verified with empirial evidence. Period. If someday empirical evidence is discovered which points to the supernatural, then it will become part of the explanation.

The explanation with multiple universes for instance has no evidence for basis and is with just such exclusion. That is outside the realm of natural explanations, with no verification.

Not all explanations are created equal. Few rise to the status of a scientific theory like evolution. For the time being, multiple universes are no more than speculation on the part of scientists working to construct a theory.

 

[Halbhh]

This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism declares that science will seek natural explanations for phenomena. It does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but declares that such events are outwith the scope of science.

In essence, if the supernatural explanation is entertained it minimises the motivation to look further for a natural explanation. That rather defeats the purpose of science.

Moreover, phenomena previously assigned to the action of God, or gods, have been found to have natural explanations. Methodological naturalism just works on the basis that phenomena that are currently unexplained can be found, through diligent investigation, to have a natural basis.

That said, in pursuing this approach, evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far.

(*--note about 'evidence of the supernatural at bottom)

I know you would already agree that if 30 or 70 people made bad theories about how the sun works (there were plenty), that would be irrelevant to the outcome in time that the sun works in a way that would be understood in time.

This same logic of course applies to anything about God, in that 40 or 80 mistaken ideas some indidivuals came up with don't really tell us anything at all, except that a lot of people were trying to figure something out.

Because there was something there they vaugely sensed, even though they weren't much good at pinpointing the subtle and sublime thing, lacking the ability, and ended up merely using (hypothesizing or asserting) stuff they could understand already, etc.

Instead of that world wide over time guessing, this below seems a lot closer to what would make sense, don't you agree:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."


Now, that, really, makes a lot more sense to me than about 97% of all stuff one could remember preached about trying to say what God is, as if to put God in a box. Don't you agree? Just given the idea God is the ultimate originator (creator) vis a vis humans, intelligent being with autonomy who thus inevitably then struggle with good and evil (benefits to others or intentional harms against others for seeming gain). How could God be merely something they could just say a few arrogant things about and pretend they knew all about Him?

-------------
* -- re "...evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far."

This evidence has come to many, but since God evidently is concious/autonomous -- not merely an inert object --

-- I think you would admit that it would therefore logically be most plausible that:

He would likely then choose to interact not with just any comers (regardless of their qualities), no matter their attitude -- just like you or I choose ourselves who we interact with, but instead only with those He selected according to whatever qualities He decided are worth His while.

Right?

Trust is a good quality in a relationship. Hand in hand with love. Trust -- faith. It seems He decided this kind of real trust -- which itself makes relationships last and makes them more enjoyable than discord -- is a better quality than various alternatives, various types of bad faith. You have to leap off the cliff to fly.