I know you've been disallowed before on the science threads.
I'm not "disallowed." It was my own suggestion in response to the expressed views of admin , that I stay away from science threads for some lengthy period of time at least, because of my being such a high-volume poster. The basic idea is that creationists with more scientific knowledge may be more motivated to participate here if there's less of my kind of debate, whatever that is.
Also, I've many times addressed this same question/accusation of Schraf's, many times. She continues with her view and I continue with mine.
You have never addressed the issue of how it is that current scientific work can continue to progress if it is all based upon an utter falsehood perpetuated only through indoctrination or habit.
I have addressed this completely. True science goes on irrespective of the overarching theories under which it is forced to labor, because its focus is on physical particulars that can be objectively handled. It makes true observations, and comes to useful conclusions in spite of the theory, which is mere backdrop in some cases. So, you can know a lot about genetics that is useful in spite of the theory of evolution, and about geology in spite of the geological timetable. Where the theory is the guiding concept or the focus of the investigation, the science will be based on false assumptions and led to false conclusions, but useful facts may be acquired nevertheless.
You have never addressed the concept of science being cumulative and progressive; with concepts A, B, and C being the basis of concepts D, E, and F, and so on.
I'm sure I have, many times. I've answered you up one side and down the other, as I have done above. You just don't like my answers. Also, for this to make sense, you have to provide particulars.
MY MISTAKE. THIS IS A SCIENCE THREAD. LAST POST HERE.
It is true that any particular creationist theory wouldn't necessarily be embraced if evolution were overthrown, but your assertion is whistling in the dark if you think that the actual overthrow of the ToE would not give a big boost to creationism in general. If evolution is not true, the alternatives are rather limited, to put it mildly.
You mean "because of evolution," not "because of the ToE." A theory can't dictate structure.
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of scientific specifics. There are lots of questions that could be asked, that have been asked and discussed at EvC on other threads for that matter. Creationists have no problem understanding DNA without reference to the ToE. Most of what is explained in evolutionist terms as genetic descent is explained in creationist terms as design economy. Let's leave it at that.
"Design economy" has been refuted, so if that's all creationists had, they have nothing.
Balderdash. Design economy CAN'T be refuted. It's always a possibility.
Creationists have no explanation for the recurring, nonsensical homologies of the living world. Evolutionists have an overarching explanation that works for every such homology.
Evolutionists are always having to point out that this or that apparent product of descent could in fact have arisen by "parallel evolution." A stopgap provision there, showing that the overarching explanation does NOT work for every homology.
I have no idea what you mean by "recurring nonsensical homologies," let alone why creationist assumptions couldn't cope with them.
God doesn't NEED to do anything, and all your own speculations about what's a good design are irrelevant, being purely your own subjective opinion. And you did not explain what you meant by a failed design.
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public
2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science
OK, I will say for the umpteenth time that I do NOT think there is a scientific conspiracy to defraud the public, or any form of deception at all, except perhaps in some cases simple unconscious self-deception. And I do not think scientists are incompetent. Why I should have to keep saying this over and over again is beyond me. So perhaps some creationists think such things, I don't. I used to believe in evolution, I now don't think the reasoning behind it hangs together, but that doesn't mean I suspect fraud.
I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to evolution, but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is anti-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and atheism. Although there are theistic evolutionists, I think atheism is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying support of evolution, and even theistic evolutionists don't necessarily accept supernatural explanations for anything. Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically overthrown, for instance, plus the plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the ToE. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive.
I'm curious, where would you disagree with the following paraphrase of your statement?
I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to [creationism], but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is [pro]-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and [fundamentalism]. ... I think [fundamentalism] is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying [attacks on] evolution... . Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically [supported], for instance, plus the [im]plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the [creationism]. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive.
"Fundamentalism" is too general, but believing the Bible is the predominant basis of creationism in this country and of anti-evolutionism. I don't think supernaturalism can be isolated in this context as it can in the atheist context. We are supernaturalists because we are Bible believers, but anti-supernaturalists acquired that position supposedly from science.
The history of flood explanations is definitely NOT a factor in current creationism. Few are aware of the history for starters, and the early notions about what constituted evidence for the flood were too unsophisticated to be taken seriously now by anyone. In fact, the evolutionist arguments against the flood on the basis of the early notions being overturned don't hold water for this very reason. The flood arguments were indefensible then and they are indefensible now. We have better understanding of what constitutes evidence for the flood now.
I'd say that the implausibilities in Darwinism do play a part in creationist thinking in general. I was already very put out at the treating of mere imaginative scenarios as evidence for evolution that I kept encountering well before I became a Christian. I'd try to track down support for evolution and the trail would just vanish after a point. I'd raise questions that evolutionists would only answer with "You have to assume a lot more time" as if time would make up for a sheer impossibility.
As for rationalizing the data into creationist theory, this is what we try to do, but it isn't easy and the evos have a big head start.
And yes, we have a lack of motivation, and probably let it affect our arguments too much, but we also have good reason for our lack of motivation in the knowledge that the Bible was given by God Himself, whereas evos have no excuse because they claim to be neutral and committed to truth no matter where it leads.