In summary, the REAL reason creationism is negated is not because it is based on myths or is un-scientific. There are no other writings which speak of such stuff and science itself is a by-product of Genesis; as we find that all active and institutionalized laws come from here, as well as the first alphabetical books. None have been able to refute anything, even when scrutinizing to the most bizarre extremities.
All theologies can have their own gifts to offer Ė or lack of it; but origins, laws, science, alphabetical writings are the exclusive domain of the Hebrew writings; and prevailing as such today with no equivalence from any other sector. Anti-Creationists seem to reject everything because they are rejecting religions as a whole, as opposed to showing anything un-scientific whatsoever in one writings. These remain un-touched; all come from one source; and every premise is 100% science:
1. The universe is finite with a BEGINNING. The rejection we cannot be sure is un-scientific. The thing is expanding! The BBT is fully based on a finite realm! 2. That once there was no science, laws or any identifiable products is correct Ė obviously by 1 above! 3. That critical actions anticipating life had to have occurred, as exemplified in Genesis Ė how else Ė jitterbugging quarks is more scientific - really?! The premises of Darwin does not even mention any anticipatory factors for life Ė it just produces bones and tendons with shapes that fit whatever it likes! Hey, thatís not even good magic or occultism! 4. That all products and actions, including life, could only emerge from an interaction is indisputable: it takes two to tango! 5. That Evolution is a direct lift-off from Genesis should not need the slightest questioning. But it does! 6. Creationism and Monotheism are not silly premises but universe altering. After all, thereís like just two possibilities, not 1000ís! 7. Of course, a life form must first be completed, then something must trigger it to be alive. Cars too!
None of the above is un-scientific; none have been dislodged; every response was scientifically based. Fact is, for 4000 years now, the Hebrew premises have been a major upset to every generation and still stands. It must be doing something right! Fact is, the Hebrew writings poses a confounding mystery for its period - and appears that way in 2011 as well. To be sure, WTF applies.
My problem with creationism is that it requires a legalistic, myopic and limiting view of the Bible. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for taking a similar view. As humans we like to have our boundaries defined clearly and I think this is largely the problem. We want definite answers and donít like ambiguity. The Bible isnít written as a book of laws and regulations. It is a collection of inspired writings that when read in context will give you understanding of what it is that God has done, is doing and well do, not always in detail but generally speaking. As well we can gain understanding of how God desires that we live our lives in a moral sense.
As a result of reading the Bible in the manner that creationists do we wind up with a very different God than what we do if the Bible is read in what I believe is the way it is intended to be read. This creates problems in a variety of ways. I think it portrays an incredibly inaccurate view of the true nature of the Christian God. This reading portrays a God who is inconsistent, being sometimes cruel and sometimes kind, as well as sometimes forgiving and sometimes vengeful. If we are to believe in a true God and one that is actually worthy of worship it seems to me that deity would have to at least be consistent. Why would I ever want to worship a god who orders genocide at the bloodied hands of His chosen people? My God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is not a God who engages in situational ethics or piques of temper.
If we believe in a God that can sanction genocide in OT times then we canít reject a god that would want the same thing of us today. I know a number of fundamentalist Christians who just donít think things through in that manner and so would never sanction such action, but as I found to my amazement on another thread recently there are those who do.
It also seems that fundamentalism winds up being intertwined with nationalism. Iím concerned with some of the rhetoric of some of the presidential candidates.
Romney recently said the following:
"God did not create this country to be a nation of follower, America must lead the world."The Link
Frankly, says who?
Contrast that message with the message of the Bible as taken in context within the whole metanarrative. We are told by the prophet Micah that what God wants is humble kindness, mercy and justice. Jesus tells us that the two great command are to love God and neighbour. He told His fellow Jews that the way to deal with the Romans was to love them, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile.
Perry has made similar statements and all of the candidates other that Ron Paul talk extensively about using huge amounts of American money, people and resources to support the military as the way to promote peace in the world. That is an OT view. The NT view as told by Jesus is that our battles are spiritual and though you might win military battles the way to win the war is by changing the hearts of the enemy.
I contend that this is a worrisome and dangerous mindset. Frankly I am very close to Americans. I find them to be the friendliest most enjoyable people on the planet. Half of my grand-kids are American and my wife is dual, and for that matter my politics are to the right of centre.
The Bible is not god. It is not to be used as a God substitute. The Christian message is about God the Father who is incarnate in the man Jesus and His Holy Spirit. The Bible is the story of God revealing Himself to us as told by those inspired to write the story in many forms but primarily through narrative that when put together forms one metanarrative. It is all culturally conditioned which is something we should just accept instead of trying to read it as a book dictated by God. If we see the OT through the lens of the NT we can see that the OT Jews were often going off track. Jesus was critical of most of the Jews of that era. He preached a different way of confronting evil. When read this way the message of God is relatively straight forward.
If someone wants to believe that God created the world 6000 years ago in six literal days then that itself isnít a major problem, other than it makes Christians look silly. It is simply a misuse of the Bible. The problem is that this misuse also leads to other understandings of the Bible that are less benign. Thankfully there is increasingly better and better scholarship on the whole issue available and as a Christian I believe that God continues to reveal truth to the world.
My specific problem with creationist thinking (summation)
In my opinion, the beauty of most genuine scientific explanations is that they are, on the surface, counterintuitive. In other words, you would not have expected it to be this way. Creationist/designist explanations utterly lack this interesting property, mostly due to their overt reliance on appeals to incredulity.
Science is all about challenging our preconceptions about how we think the world works; and, as often happens, those preconceptions turn out to be completely wrong. Creationist/designist so-called "science" does nothing of the sort, since it consists of nothing but preconceptions and the desperate desire to hold on to them in the face of any and all evidence that might go against them. In other words, cdesignists have fallen so deeply in love with their own "theory" that falsifiability (a critical requirement of the scientific method) goes out the window.
This is why I brought up those points (messages 200 & 207) to Chuck77 regarding the Official Definition of The Theory of Intelligent DesignTM; namely that (1) cdesignists are loathe to search for evidence that would falsify their so-called "theory", prefering to search for confirming evidence only, thus explicitly relying on confirmation bias; and (2) the love that cdesignists hold for their "theory" by explicitly stating "is best explained by" smack in the middle of their Official Definition. I was genuinely hoping that Chuck77 would honestly respond to these two specific points. However, by going completely off-topic, he has utterly failed to do so.
The primary problem with creationism - which explains the issue raised in the OP is the egocentricity of the typical creationist. They start with the belief that their views are inherently superior to any alternatives.
This is why creationists make claims about what the evidence shows, without having investigated the evidence.
This is why creationists feel that any excuse to dismiss contrary evidence is adequate.
This is why creationists jump to conclusions based on a superficial look at the evidence - and sometimes even complain that others actually dare to look at the evidence in more detail and find out that the creationist is wrong.
This is why creationists regard any criticism of somebody on "their" side as wrong - even if it is true - while happily making and supporting attacks on their opponents, even if those attacks are false.
This is why creationists reverse the meaning of "biased" and "unbiased".
This is why there unresolvable conflicts between creationists. Each starts with the view that their own version is better and neither will change their minds.
In short, to answer the OP, the only options that typically matter to creationists are rivals that are strong enough to be a threat (which are "wrong" and must be disproven) and their own views (which are "obviously" true to everyone). Anything else need not be considered.
My problem with creationist thinking is closed-mindedness with which they approach the subjects of alternative creation beliefs or evolution. Before they even engage in a debate they "know" that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Before they even know what the other side is saying, they have made up their minds that it is wrong.
This way of thinking is then projected onto science and scientists by creationists who just can't grasp the concept that science is prepared to change it's ideas when new evidence is unearthed.
Any scientific evidence which is presented as contrary to a creationist stance is handwaved away as wrong, bad science, evolutionist dogma etc, they don't take the time to find out just what the evidence comprises, how it was obtained and the implications of it.
My final and biggest problem with creationist thinking is the sheer arrogance displayed when a creationist with a pathetic understanding of science tells scientists that their science is flawed.
Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.