General discussion of moderation procedures

I'm getting behind on my legitimate work so I can't take the time now but I'd like to think about it later.

That title bothers me because it implies something false and I'd like to affirm Biblical creationist ideas as true (I tend to think of evolutionism as pseudoscience myself ). If it's getting basically at the same thing then let's see where my idea goes. There may be a better title for it yet though. I'm seeing some lightening up here myself, and appreciating how I'm being dealt with. I think having a separate forum that discusses science from a Biblical point of view, with the word "theology" in it, would probably reassure the science diehards that they don't need to dog our every step to preserve the integrity and reputation of science as they see it, because the title would compartmentalize our views sufficiently -- even disqualify them in their minds, but that's OK, as it would leave us free to defend them with whatever means are appropriate.

I understand the separation but it won't work for our side. To be specific and practical about it, apparently you are objecting to my including the term "science" in my proposed title? Or the whole idea of our discussing anything scientific whatever because of the preconception that "faith" and "science" are mutually exclusive?If it's mostly just the use of the term "science" that is the hang-up, other possibilities that might work are Theology of Creationism, or Theological Creationism, or even Biblical Creationism. In fact I like the last one, but any of these should remove the topics from the Science section and yet leave us free to appeal to scientific concepts as they come up.But if you don't want us to be allowed to do that no way nohow, I don't see a solution to this because it's exactly what we need to do. I don't want to make a big issue of it because we are trying to live with it and work around it, but I do have to say that this precondition for scientific qualification is unfair and since it's the reason you can't meet our objectives I'll try again to state some of the objections to it.There is nothing anti-scientific about a Biblical worldview, in fact quite the opposite, just speaking for myself alone. We start from the inviolable Biblical premise, we start from the position that Biblical revelation is a KNOWN, and that everything we observe must be explained within its terms.Scientific investigations based on that inviolable premise are no less subject to objective testing and refutation than any other.For instance, we KNOW a worldwide Flood occurred, but we may have all kinds of hypotheses about how it occurred, how it affected the material world and what kind of evidence we may expect to find for it, all of which are subject to empirical testing and refutation without the premise being challenged.What happens here, however, is that if a specific hypothesis about how it happened appears to be refuted (sometimes it does only APPEAR to be), this usually entails an unwarranted leap to the conclusion that the whole Biblical premise is refuted, which is not the case.There is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a solid premise, and there is nothing that is now actually KNOWN to science as FACT that refutes Biblical principles.Empirical science owes a lot to Christianity as a matter of fact, solidly BIBLICAL Christianity, not liberal compromised Christianity. It would be nice to have a forum for discussing this sort of thing too without always being overridden by secularist assumptions. I'd expect to muster the evidence of course, but I've mustered a lot of evidence here only to have it illegitimately swallowed up in the preconceptions of the other side.BUT OK, I don't want to get back into that old complaint, and as I said I don't want to make a huge deal out of the whole notion of what science is, since really it's the center of the whole controversy here and I can't expect the evo side to capitulate on it. BUT I'd like to think that SOME accommodation could be made to our different view point for the sake of fostering a GENUINE balance and fairness in the signature debate at EvC.If nothing will work from your position then I guess we'll just stay as is and continue to work within the rules as well as we can, but just as a practical matter, if it would help to remove the term "science" from the title I'd propose some possibilities. Percy said he's not happy with the Religion/Social Issues section and I'd tentatively propose three forums for it, hoping to meet Biblical Creationist objectives without violating the Science preconditions if possible: Biblical Creationism, Theological ID and Theology of History.Again, the idea is to accommodate the objective I've stated of removing these categories from the Science section while leaving us free to appeal to scientific concepts as they come up. And again, if there's no way this is permissible then we're at an impasse and there is no solution except going on as usual.

If this is decided on, then I'd also like you to add one for the non-ID creationists, or YECs, which I think would best be called "Biblical Creationism."I'm also for having a "Let Buz say anything he wants to" forum.

You either want to accommodate our views at least to some minimal extent or you don't. If you don't, that's that. End of subject.

You are as usual murdering logic and missing the point I'm making. I've only disallowed investigation of the BIBLICAL PREMISE, not any hypothesis based on it, and only disallowed it in the specific new forums we are trying to design, to get away from its hegemony everywhere else. If this is not possible then end of controversy as I've said, back to EvC business as usual. Ya know, I didn't even use that term but there you are putting quotes around it as if I did. Couldn't you be a little more careful about what you impute to me? I mean, like READ WHAT I WROTE for a change. Once again, there is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a stated inviolable premise. You can violate this premise all you want elsewhere, as is done every day here on 99% of the forums anyway, but I'd like one Bash-Free Zone to exist if possible.And AGAIN, if nobody can see their way clear to accommodating to this, I don't see why we are having this discussion at all, because it's the ONLY way to solve the problems Buz and I experience here.

The point has been made ad nauseum already. And my answer is the same. YOU make the split, I don't, Buz doesn't. I don't mind if you want to relegate Creationist discussions to the Religion section, but I want to be able to INCLUDE considerations for "what physical evidence there is for or against a particular view point" because that's how we think about these things, as all of a piece, whether you do or not.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-19-2005 09:19 PM