Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

The question proposed for discussion is based on the following observations:1) Fundamentalists tend to advocate faith ,or mysticism, as superior to reason and the scientific method.2) Fundamentalists tend to insist that if scientific data conflict with their religious texts or dogmas (as interpreted by the fundamentalists), the religious text or dogma is to be preferred as the arbiter of truth.3) Nevertheless, most fundamentalists usually have no qualms about taking advantage of technologies that could not have been developed without the scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts.Some examples of this are, antibiotics and evolution, computers and quantum physics, petroleum and mainstream geology.More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.I propose a discussion of the following questions: Is the use of technologies by fundamentalists, that depend on fundamentalist-rejected science, hypocritical or a form of intellectual freeloading? Would fundamentalists who reject scientific reasoning in favor of faith or mysticism based epistemologies, be more intellectualy honest to adopt lifestyles that exclude the use of modern technologies that depend on the scientific reasoning they reject, much as the Amish do ?

By all means. Indeed, I'll co-opt evidence you yourself have provided, with your kind indulgence.The scenario depicted in your current avatar has serious issues with veracity not only from the standpoint of geology, oceanography, and biology, but also naval engineering (specifically structural engineering, hydraulics, and stability) and civil engineering (specifically sanitation).Your only real options are a) to insist that it is, nevertheless, true, due to what you consider scriptural evidence, or b) to argue that it does not, in fact, violate the above fields.By your own admission, you'd regard option a) as viable. Fair enough, but you have ipso facto rejected modern science and engineering in favor of what you feel is a correct scriptural interpretation. QED.Whether taking advantage of modern engineering in the face of this is hypocritical is the matter under discussion. If you feel that it is not, please elaborate.We'd have to start a new thread to do option b), since this is not a science forum, but I and I suspect other posters would be more than prepared to join discussion on those topics. I think defending option b) would be a difficult exercise for you. You don't agree ? Then why all the fuss about evolution and mainstream geology ?

I would not even begin to suggest that fundamentalists should be denied modern technologies through any form of coercion.I support all forms of religious freedom that do not involve submission to or perpetration of violence.I just wonder if "voluntary simplicity" would feel like a more intellectually honest option, much like home schooling, to some fundamentalists.It's intended to be a "fun discussion topic".

Then you agree that the story surrounding the vessel depicted in your cute little avatar is not literal history?If not, I must decline your kind offer of red herring, no matter how tastefully prepared.

Well, Pascal was Catholic, so I doubt if you'd have much success establishing his credentials as someone who agreed with your theology.In any case, Pascal and Faraday, and I'm sure others, may have been creationists. So what? They lived in times before evolution was developed, based on the evidence.This is like arguing that geocentrism is correct because Augustine accepted it.It's irrelevant.Now you might try proving that your supposed "fundy" scientists rejected methodological naturalism and routinely appealed to the supernatural in their work.In fact, I really think you should.

If you aren't interested in serious discussion, but would rather employ whatever diversionary tactics you can think of, let's just say you disagree with the question in the OP and be done with it.

Indeed, but no such claim was made in the OP. And this is one of its strengths. Can the same be said of the views of at least some fundamentalist religionists? Are there circumstances under which you are willing to re-evaluate your interpretations?

I think Point 1 or 2 can be substantiated by examining the stated position of the ICR. If your position is somewhat more flexible than the ICR, so much the better. Point 3 is a personal opinion.

The ICR site has an FAQ section that covers their views of how they define "Biblical creationism".

Well, no she doesn't. It isn't just a matter of what the static stratigraphy is today. It's how the reservoir rock formed and why oil is there in the first place. This involves dynamic processes that, at least according to conventional geology, require millions of years to happen. The organic rich source rock has to be present, the reservoir rock has to be in the right place, and there has to be trapping rock that's less permeable to oil, or it would seep out. All these different types of rock have different sound speeds, which is why 3D seismic imaging works.I've yet to see a credible YEC scenario that explains petroleum reservoir formation.

By claiming time does not matter, you are assuming the strata remain unchanged throughout time, and the oil "just happened" to be placed there, and remained there, undisturbed, along with the unchanging, undisturbed sediments, until drills reached it.I suppose, given your YEC views, this is not surprising. You are indeed sort of forced into this viewpoint. Or you could try to come up with a scenario of how oil was formed after the flood, but that's been done, and refuted, before. The idea that the oil was placed there sometime during the seven days (although where is this in Genesis- but then where is oil-after-the-flood in Genesis?) is probably the better option of the Hobson's choices of YEC geology.Nevertheless, this isn't consistent with the evidence. The evidence
favors the view that the Earth does change slowly over large amounts of time, and under the right conditions, structures can form that trap petroleum generating rock.One then has to take into account the proper relationship of the location of source rock, reservoir rock,and trapping structures, and this inevitably does lead to a consideration of the changes in these positions over time. And the OE position is the one that most reasonably fits the evidence.You objection that your online references "don't explicitly mention OE" is irrelevant. So what? It's assumed, because the evidence is so overwhelming that nobody working in the field seriously questions it.Just as civil engineers assume Newtonian mechanics is valid at the scales they work at. You won't see "By the way, we are assuming F=ma is still true" or basic elasticity theory, repeated in every paragraph of a paper on bridge design.

Now that's an original post, and what I had hoped for by starting the thread. To a degree, sure. It was intended to be a little bit of an over the top conversation starter.

Well done. This is POTM level.

Recall that in the OP, the qualifier "many", not "all", was used in the statement We can certainly debate the meaning of "fundamentalist", but obviously the OP does not apply to those that do not fall under the qualifiers of the OP. If you are referring to Francis Collins, yes, AFAIK he is an Evangelical, and also AFAIK he accepts the theory of evolution and has made recent statements opposing Discovery Institute ID. If you have references to the contrary, let us know. There certainly exist evangelicals in this category, so again it depends on how specific the term fundamentalist is.

One discussion topic that has not come up yet is how geologists evaluate "timing and migration" in a prospective petroleum basin. This is another instance in which OE based ages are at the very heart of the methodologies used.Even if a petroleum basin has the right configuration of source rock, reservoir rock, and cap rock (and sound OE based arguments for how this is evaluated have already been made in this thread), there still is the question of whether the source rock is at the right maturity to generate petroleum.Undermature, and the source rock has organic matter that is not yet petroleum (kerogen, bitumen). Overmature, and the source rock is starting to become metamorphic rock and is beyond the petroleum generating phase. The source rock has to be at the right maturity for petroleum formation and migration of the petroleum into the reservoir rock.These are inescapably age based questions ,and OE age based questions at that. This is not empty theorizing, as you seem to think. This is a practical problem that simply cannot be solved without reference to OE ages.Your denial of this does not make the facts go away.
If you think we on the board are just making this up, do a Google search on "petroleum basin modeling" or "petroleum timing and migration". Real major petroleum companies are paying real money to small firms that specialize in doing this kind of work, which very much involves applications of the facts of OE.