Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Jar's above statement reflects what I perceive to be the concensus opinion of this site, that is, the idea that the Christian/Creationist paradigm somehow "keeps" such students in a state of ignorance resulting in an incapability to reason and perform, especially in the sciences.While the high reknown of "fundamentalist christian scientists" throughout the centuries bears witness to the absurdity of such a claim, it is not to antiquity that I want to turn, but to the present.As one who falls into both of Jar's favorite categories ("Fundamentalist Christian and Home-schooled student) my personal experience as well as those of countless friends and acquaintances categorically denies any such implication as a result of being raised with a pardaigm of "ignorance"...Although many similar claims have been leveled before - at me, at acquaintances, and at home-schoolers/christians at large..never is there any standard of measurement applied by those asserting the claim. HOWEVER, based on the traditionally-valued standards of academic success, I find these claims to be absolutely baseless and ad hominem in nature, as such claims are never empirically validated.Attention moderators: If such a response is deemed Off-topic, I'll gladly start a new thread

Again, my personal experience argues otherwise. While it is true that there are many who poorly represent creationism, it is concurrently the case that there are many who legitimately practice (and represent) science AND advocate biblical creationism.In fact, I am personally aware of an extensive number of people who do exactly that, whether family, acquaintances, or professionals whom I have researched.The YECers at this site are constantly encouraged to study the topics they debate; That's should go without saying. Conversely, I would expect the Evo to refrain from blanket statements (many of them quite extreme (see Jar's terrorist reference above)) especially in light of the many creationists who both practice science, and are EXTREMELY interested in the subjects they're "obsessed with"...

Granted. I'm just responding from the perspective of one who is legitimately fascinated by science AND who subscribes unequivocally to a creationist paradigm. Most of my close friends and acquaintances, adherents of creationism like myself, are practitioners of the sciences (in many fields) whose scienctific pursuit is not one iota less than genuine. Thus my perception of creationists at large (of whom I am one) is quite the contrary to that which is presented at large on this board..

WHAT? You're going to choose to disbelieve me because I haven't provided the names of the my creationist friends and acquaintances that practice science? Get real.I'm not about to cite all of their names here for your pedandic pleasure.What I will do for you is cite a little context in which I make the claim.I am personally well-acquainted with no less than 30 practioners (and of course creationists) of science in fields ranging from: mechanical engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, thoracic medicine, genetics, bioengineering, neurology, paleontology, computer science, pharmaceutics, aeronautics..and more. My point, whether you want to believe me or not, is that I was raised in an environment where adherence to both science and creationist paradigms were practiced without conflict, ignorance, deliberate deception, or any of the other accusations oft leveled at creationists, especially here...

Right; sometimes our personal experiences are insufficient to extrapolate to a general description. See the above reply to Ringo. I'm not trying to overstate the case by appearing to claim an overwhelming presence of "Creationist Biologists", but to merely relate my own acquaintance with those creationist biologists who do exist....unless maybe I am going senile (i'm losing my hearing, does that count?)...

Thanks for the permission...but i'll have to pass, thanks. Not at all. It's the idea that man has a finite mind that can't necessarily grasp all truths. No, there's no confusion. That's exactly my point. The evo, for the most part, doesn't even recognize that this type of creationist exists (one who practices science and believes in a literal creation). That ignorance lends itself to the conjuring of a quasi-strawman creationist (I say quasi-strawman because some "creationists" do promote the image) in place of creationists who do in fact practice science. It's this kind of ignorance that i'm trying to draw attention to.

RIGHT...so why don't you read through this thread and tell me if it reads more like an empirically supported research paper or an opinions page from the NY Times...

Understood... The top resources I prefer are those of Loma Linda University (a seventh-day adventist university) and their Geo-science Research Institute...

I don't even know what you want...Are you asking me for the names of my acquaintances?How many names would satisfy you? The thirty or so that I know? The five hundred + on the DI list? However many pro-creation scientists actually exist?Or are you just trying to annoy?Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

I'm the one who proposed man's finiteness. How now am I circumventing "that limitation"? I think uncertainty and tentativity are perfectly coherent with the notion of a finite mind, so no problem there... Who's smearing who? I've never made this claim, nor have I asserted that my acquaintances have made this claim. DID I EVER SAY THAT?????? Once again, YOUR ASSERTION, NOT MINE. I've never made these claims on behalf of my acquaintances.{qs3) that representatives of all known animal species can fit in a space the size of three boxcars and be used to repopulate the Earth - in only decades - after a deluge that extinguished all other life on Earth, and that the descendants of 8 people would, after only 5-6 generations, be sufficient in number to have populated all the civilizations of the ancient world.{/qsYet again, your words placed in my mouth...are you serious? Unless your understanding of their beliefs is skewed by misunderstanding in which case the slander is on your part, not mine...Just one question; Why the quick degradation into baseless accusations?

From Wikkipedia on the Salem Hypotheses: (my bold)

I am referring to creationists who are skeptical of the ToE (some are OEC, some YEC). The OECers do not necessarily (many don't) subscribe to a global flood or other aspects of YEC.Thus I am referring to (scientific) skeptics of evolution, some of whom are also religiously skeptical of evolution, but others who aren't.

ok

I think given the context that my choice of words was sufficiently lucid; But for your sake, I'll modify it to "doubtful of evolution"...better? My point was that you were assuming positions that I had never taken. Furthermore, you attacked those [i]assumed[/qs] positions as if they were the basis for my skepticism (disbelief) and that of my acquaintances, when in fact, our skepticism is scientific in nature.It's no different than when a creationist attacks evos as being humanists and atheists. It's a mis-direction from why the evo actually believes in the theory...

To elucidate:Yes, I have friends (and family) who work in the biological sciences (and paleontology) who reject darwinian evolution (if that's what you meant by the "unifying theory of all biology.")AND as I pointed out to Crash, some are YECers, a few are OECers. That's not the point. The point is their skepticism of ToE as practicing scientists. Believe me, i've been begging and pleading...