What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

It occurs to me that after Dover the creationism movement, both ID and traditional YEC-ism, may look back on what they've accomplished and conclude, just as you suggest, that it is no longer necessary to gain representation in the science classroom. Their efforts with school boards have made many school systems leery of detailed treatments of evolution, and school boards are very influential in the textbook selection process. This combined with their efforts with text book publishers have shorn many biology textbooks of meaningful treatments of evolution.Without looking up the statistics I still think it would be accurate to say that the percentage of Americans who reject evolution and accept a young earth has gradually increased over the past few decades, especially recently in the face of the argument from design.In light of these factors I think it could well be that creationists would look back with satisfaction upon their accomplishments. Evolution isn't defeated, of course. In scientific circles it is stronger than ever. But in the sociocultural context where it counts evolution has been discredited and creationism has won.--Percy

Is that true? I am slightly astounded. I have no statistics but I am sure that this is not true for the Western world outside of the U.S and I am fairly dismayed to hear that this appears to be the case in the U.S.Do you think that this is a uniquely American phenomenon and if so why is it that the U.S in particular is prone to such thinking?

I agree with Miller's concern about the overall level of knowledge and thinking ability.If the creationists win in the long term it will only be by stifling rational thinking. The consequences for the US are large indeed.I think that here in Canada they are not winning. A politician who is found to hold their beliefs is laughed at. (We have some , and their colleagues try to keep it quiet ). To the degree that other countries hold them in check those other countries will surpass the US.

There are three other great successes they can point to in the US, the growth of the Avoidance School Systems, the Growth of the Opt Out Home School concept and the successes they have had in creating whole Infomercial Networks.They have discovered that Biblical Creationism is an almost unlimited profit center.Biblical Creationism is a Growth Industry in the US and right now it is booming.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is no insult to be considered a loon by Atheists in sheeps clothing or persons who correspond to Judas the Betrayer. In fact, it is the very best endorsement of my correctness to be rejected by Darwinists of any stripe and traitors. Their approval would certainly make me a loon and a moron. Extreme Fundamentalists, whether Atheist or Protestant, reject all evidence that contradicts their dogma. Again, we are glad these types are not in our camp.Ray

I have read many of IAJ's posts and I think he puts down what he believes. I have no problem reading and understanding what he believes. It is that a lot of what he believes leaves a lot to be desired.
As far as articulate=: As I said I have no problem understanding what he believes.
He is definitely not at a loss for words.
He has a hard time staying on topic. But I had that problem in the beginning and still do every now and then when prodded just right.He definitely has an opinion and don't mind stating it. As I said in another post makes no difference if I think his opinion wrong or not.While I am rambling on (doting old fool) There are some evolutionist on this site that on some of their post instead of hitting the submit reply button should hit the back button instead. They make snide remarks to cut down the poster they are replying to. If I remember my psychology
that is just a way of making oneself feel important. It does nothing for the debate and only makes the person look stupid to the lurkers. In other words it is a bad example for EvC. rant over.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Does the fact that you are a narrow minded hateful "Origin of Species" thumping Atheist have anything to do with your definition as to what constitutes rational thinking?How rational is Evolution, or Materialism, or the belief that apes morphed into men over millions of years? The Bible records a lot of miracles but apes becoming men is not one of them.You are undoubtedly the least rational person at EvC since you have no problem putting on your Admin hat to exact what your "rationality" cannot from opponents. In fact it is the Atheist way of the 20th century; whether Atheist Russia or China or Southeast Asia: ban your opponents or murder them. Surely you are objective enough to admit that Atheist rationality does not exist in lieu of what I just mentioned? In fact as soon as Atheists (Darwinists) got judicial power in the 20th century they made Creationism illegal. "Suddenly" a Document that was written in the 18th century "said" the theory which says God created reality is illegal.History shows your sense of what is rational is the most irrational. In the decades to come we will reverse the corruption of the Constitution and Creationism will enjoy full protection as a scientific theory. Atheist-Darwinian "rationality" will be exposed for what it was: Third-World censorship via corruption of the Constitution.Ray

I have to live in it. "Dismayed" isn't strong enough.

Actually, the US has never been very prone to thinking.Many of the Founding Fathers were brilliant intellectuals, but that was pretty much the last time intellectual thought had any place in the public discourse.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

The topic is about both articulate and informed. IaJ is particularly uninformed so he isn't the example we need.

Rational thinking involves considering the evidence available, using well defined logical steps to connect the dots and arrive at conclusions which can be followed by others.The apes to man example is evidenced by a chain of "dots" in the past and existing evidence that makes it a rational conclusion based on the evidence. Those who argue against this conclusion have never, that I've seen taken all the evidence into account and explained it in any way.

Cheer up, Percy, Coragyps, and all other thinking yanks.From memory, the age group in the U.S. with the highest acceptance of the idea that animals descend from other animals is the 18-25 group (about 63%). They are also the age group with the highest proportion of self-described non-religious people (20%).Time is on your side (as well as evidence, which is growing fast, as you know).This has much more to do with cultural change and the declining influence of organised superstition than levels of technical understanding of biology.I'm sure most of the 63% know very little about how they might have descended from a common ancestor with the chimps. It's just that the religious virus isn't strong enough for the concept to bother them.

He seems to be pretty well informed on what he believes.It is just that if what he believes is the truth then the rest of us are a bunch of intellectual dwarfs.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I think herein I see one of the biggest problem we have here at EvC.Everyone here is lumping everybody that believes in creation by God into the same camp with ID/ers, and YEC'ers.I understand they have an agenda but it is their agenda not mine. Until the Kansas court case I did not know about either of these 2 groups, in fact I did not know about YEC's until I came here to EvC.I had been overseas as a missionary since 1989 and when you are doing your job you do not have much time to keep up with what is going on in the world.I notice that not only about creation but about religion in general.
Everyone is basically lumped into one group.There are many different religions with a wide difference in beliefs.Then all Christians are lumped into one group.Last accounts I had there was over 1200 different denominations in the United States.That means there are over 1200 different belief systems.There are those who teach salvation by grace and grace alone. I happen to be in this group.There are those who teach salvation by works.There are those who teach salvation by grace + works.And then there are those who teach anything you want to hear.If you can't find one that suits your belief system start your own. Many did.Now if the group that I belong to is right all the others are wrong, as we have a totally different belief system.On the other hand if they are right then the group I belong to is in big trouble.So it is not fair to lump everyone into the same group, as we believe and practice different things.Buzz, I am still confused.I believe the universe to be eternal in some form.
I believe that somewhere in the past God took the elements necessary from Himself and created this beautiful, magnificent universe we are privileged to live in.I know this makes me an eternalist.
But I also believe in creation, does this make me a creationist?
I think Biblical creation should be taught in the Church, not in a science class.
If the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ would do the job it was given in the great commission there would be no problem. First thing it would have to do is get out of the entertainment business.There are many things taught as fact in science class rooms that do not belong there any more than Biblical creation.I think fact should be taught in science classes. Leave notions, presumptions, and I believes outside, or in the philosophy class.I am really having a hard time with all this new information I have been reading in the past 4+ months. We talk about creation and evolution in the same breath but they are 2 different things. That is like comparing apples to oranges.Creation=orgin of the universe, and origin of all life.Evolution=an attempt to explain how the change in life forms from single cell to present day life forms took place.If we are to compare Creation to anything it has to be singularity. and abiogenesis.Creation=origin of the universe, and origin of all life.
Singularity=origin of universe.
Abiogenesis=origin of life.Creation=believed by faith, results are seen in the universe and living life forms.Singularity=believed by faith, results are seen in the universe.
Abiogenesis=believed by a whole lot of faith, results seen in life forms.So why do I keep reading posts with creation and evolution talked about as though they are the same thing?As I proof read this post I come to think maybe I am wrong about creation in the science class room.If singularity and abiogenesis, or any of the string theories are taught in the science classroom all of these being faith based then creation probably should be given equal time, or the former should not be taught.So if creation is not science since it is faith based.
Singularity would not be science since it is faith based.
Abiogenesis would not be science since it is faith based.Maybe that bunch of creationist everyone has been talking about has a legitimate gripe, and are just barking up the wrong tree.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Just as there is varying amounts of evidence for something, so with faith. There's blind faith having little or no evidence substantiating it and there's all degrees of substantiated faith, depending on the amount of evidence supportive of it.Articulate and informed creationists would not, of course, exercise blind faith, i.e. faith having no substantiation. The articulate & informed creationist may have faith in God as creator. That faith does not X out the observable scientific aspects of the various versions of creationism, supportive of the faith. Edited by Buzsaw, : add word for clarification

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.