What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

I did say theists, rather than Christians, but many such theists do regard themselves as Christians, so I think your comment could certainly be described as articulate and informed!*Interestingly, you'd be limiting the intelligence of a creator God to suggest that he couldn't create a universe in which NS and RM are part of the design. What's random from our point of view would not be from his. An infinitely intelligent creator God who exists outside spacetime would perceive the four dimensional universe in similar way that we can look at a three dimensional view. What we see as past, present, and future would all be known to a truly omniscient Deity.In creating the universe, this deity created Buzsaw with intent, with complete knowledge of all the physical, chemical and biological processes that would lead up to him, of what point (or points) in spacetime he belongs, and with full knowledge of the history of his great, great, great grandchildren. That's what I call omniscience! Such an entity would not need to practice genetic manipulation in such a way that the I.D. people seem to be suggesting. He wouldn't need to correct mistakes that he wouldn't make.If you want to argue with people who believe in an infinitely intelligent God and describe themselves as Christians that their kind of God bears no resemblance to the Biblical God, then I'd be inclined to agree with you.The intelligence of the biblical God seems to me to be pretty much limited to the intelligence of the people who invented him.If there's a real creator of this universe, then describing such books as the Bible and the Koran as His word is incredibly insulting.Not that he'd care, of course.*[Note bluegenes covering himself against possible accusations of making an off topic post]

Of course this has to include views other than creationism. Many Christians who are well-informed on scripture reject creationism.Creationism has nothing to do with knowledge of scripture and everything to do with doctrines ABOUT scripture.

Just to clarify, I would say it is the admins job to monitor everyone, especially notoriously bad or off topic posters. The conversation Buz mentioned was more a general call for creo-ish admins to help out with creo members so that they will perhaps realize that it is their behaviour and not their opinion which is problematic.

Sorry, I am not trying to be argumentative, but I guess I don't see the difference here. Inerrancy {to me} = creation is scientific. I think I am missing something in what you are saying.What is your criteria for 'informed'?

Let me try an example. At the request of concerned parents, your local school board is sponsoring a hearing about including creation science in the high school science curriculum. Here is an example of an effective creationist presentation: That's the type of presentation that scares me, because few school board members know enough science to realize there's no truth to any of it.Here's an example of a presentation that doesn't bother me at all: And so forth. Any school board hearing this would easily recognize that it violates the establishment clause of the constitution because you can't teach religion (in this case Christianity) in the public schools. They would also easily recognize that it isn't science, and even if they didn't know about the establishment clause would at least recognize that science class isn't the proper place for lessons about God and Bible.Desiring to counter evolution's threat to faith, and recognizing that lessons based on God and Bible would never be found acceptable for public schools, creationists worked very hard for years to craft something called "creation science." I'm putting it in quotes this time to distinguish it from creationism.In order to give creationism the appearance of science, creationists removed all references to God and Bible from the story of Genesis, wrote papers and held conferences, and made requests to school boards, state legislatures and text book publishers for inclusion of treatments of creation science.It was all a scam, of course, but an immensely successful and persuasive one. For example, more than half of all Americans reject evolution and believe the world is 6000 years old.Creation science suffered two serious judicial defeats, one in 1982 with McLean v. Arkansas, and the other in 1987 with Edwards v. Aguillard. After these defeats creationism ceased seeking legislative remedies and concentrated on school boards, text book publishers, and average Americans. As I've noted, they've been very successful in this, and noting the difficulty many discussion boards had in maintaining civil and constructive dialogue I started this hopefully neutrally moderated website to examine the question of whether creation science is actually science. Naturally we also examine a raft of related issues, but that's the primary focus.And so it seems very strange these recent days to witness a stream of creationists who do not seem to care about maintaining the illusion that creation science is real science. A creationist who knows that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science and not religion (i.e., that creationism is actually creation science) by not resorting to religious arguments and evidence such as God and Bible, because to do so loses the debate outright.--Percy

Thanks for the plug Buzz.I thought I was inarticulate until I look up the definition. Articulate Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comI think I can at least qualify on the first 2.As far as informed, Paulk kind of hit that nail on the head. When I came here in March you could write what I knew about science on the head of a pen.My knowledge of theology is something else.I would like to think my knowledge base has increased immensely since then.But you must remember just about everything I now know about science I have read either here or on some web site. Therefore the quality is in question.Now I would like to address one question some of you have about why creationist do not down other creationist.It probably comes from the fact that everybody has an opinion.And most creationist believe that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, right or wrong does not matter. I have to give an account to God for what I teach not what anyone else teaches. Therefore I am very busy trying to learn so everything I present is the truth. This leaves little time to try to correct others false teaching. At last count there was at least 34,000 different religious groups in the world and growing.I hope I didn't get too far off topic with this post.

---

"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 didn't mean to put you through all this trouble. Of course I can in theory distinguish 'science' and 'religion'. I see. In EvC land at the moment, me thinks there is still a lot of veiled evangelization, aimed more at getting scientists to accept God as part and parcel of the 'whole' and not incongruous with it, rather than outright attempts at creation science. It is a slight difference, in both cases there is a desperate attempt to protect belief. One method is to confront science itself and deny the accuracy/validity of it with other 'evidences', and the second is to revolutionize and update God's role, a God of the gaps.Hard to explain without giving examples or naming names. I think you have to look at someone's motivations, and not all creationists are pushing creaion science so much as protecting personal beliefs in irrational ways.

So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion.That is ridiculous.I do believe God created the universe. That = creationist.I do not believe the Biblical account of creation should be taught in a science class, never have.I believe Bible should be a course in school, but that will never happen in the US.I believe there are a lot of things taught in a science classroom that should be taught in philosophy class.So in fact this is not about Evolution verses Creation but creationism as held by ID'ers.So I am still dumfounded about what an Articulate Informed Creationist is:Articulate=??????Informed=????????Creationist=?????Please clarify.

---

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

Perhaps there's a feeling that if the I.D. old earthers, with their acceptance of a great deal of evolution, did not make it into science classes, then the school rooms are not a likely venue for the battle. Maintaining their 50% of the U.S. public is best done via the traditional strengths of dogmatic "true" religions (promise of heaven, threat of hell, etc.)Complex scientific arguments that they'll lose in the eyes of anyone who understands anything much about science can backfire, and make the preachers appear ignorant and stupid.I'm not suggesting that this is any kind of creationist strategy, more perhaps a general instinctive reaction to events.Another factor may be that there could have been a significant movement from the YEC camp into the I.D. camp. Not of the general public as a whole, but from that small minority with sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to make coherent arguments for psuedo-science. If you were arguing for "scientific" creationism of some sort, which line would you find easier to fight the scientific establishment with, AiG type stuff, or Discovery Institute stuff?I.D. is no threat to the international scientific establishment at all, merely a temporary problem in U.S. education issues, a problem you've always had anyway since the start of teaching the Modern Synthesis in western schools.I.D. is actually more of a threat to Young Earth Creationists. The young earthers risk losing their next generation of "intellectuals".Perhaps that's a partial explanation if you're puzzled by an apparent lack of Articulate Informed Creationists.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

ray brought up that he was insulted earlier, and i meant to make this point then. i'll make it now: perhaps it is in the best interest of the creationists to define what they consider to be an "articulate, well-informed creationist" and provide a few examples. afterall, if that example is say, ray martinez -- and all the creationists agree -- it's hardly fair to suspend him for what creationists consider the pinnacle of debate. i picked an extreme example, i know, but having the creationists share their standards could really help resolve the questions about how we should handle creationist members from a moderation perspective, and what rules they should (or should not) be held to.as an aside: the bible is often taught in high school, actually. as literature.Edited by arachnophilia, : badly phrased

---

Maybe where you are from but my brother is over all studies in a county in Fla. He is a born again child of the King and would love to have Bible taught in his schools but is not allowed to because of separation of church and state.As far as my many ???????? marks I have no idea what Percy is looking for. Nor do I have any idea what His definition of the words questioned are.

---

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

Maybe it isn't allowed because nuts like your brother are as likely to proselytize for their religion rather than teach the Bible.

quote:

---

People For the American Way:

​

It is perfectly acceptable to teach about the Bible in public schools, so long as the instruction is presented objectively, as part of secular education, and not as history or from a particular sectarian perspective.

---

There is a problem with proposed curricula:

quote:

---

However, across the country, school districts are being asked to adopt a Bible curriculum produced by a private group called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS).

---

Many of the proposed curricula are really attempts at indoctrinating kids into evangelical Christianity.

quote:

---

Board member Bruce Majors said, "we want to teach our children that the Bible is the truth.

---

---

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

no no, you misunderstand. yes, this is percy's site at the end of the day, but. percy does not define creationism or creationists. i'm asking for their -- your -- opinion on the matter. regardless of percy's criteria, the considerations of the creationists themselves should be taken into account.which is better, to ask an evolutionist about his opinion of what makes a good creationist, or to ask a creationist?(continued aside) content matters. you can't have a church service, but you can read and study the bible. similarly, you can read and study the enuma elish, the bhagavad gita, the epic of gilgamesh, the quran, paradise lost, etc. teaching religion using the bible and teaching about religion and studying the bible as literature are two very, very different things. even if it seems subtle on the surface. you can teach students what people believe, but not what to believe.

---

It is not a book, it is a large paper that will appear on-line. My work will wipe the smile off of your face, that is, the one I see underneath the words you write.NosyNed wondered aloud why I do not publish my evidence before I get scooped as this is what persons do who have produced original evidence. I never had a chance to tell him that his admonition is a constant and traumatic concern of mine. But I have no choice since I cannot publish what I have until finished or it will not make sense. I am going as fast as I can.Arach: my work will wipe the smile off of your face. We (= Creationists) have refuted your theory and there is nothing you can do about it.For what they are worth, thanks for the compliments.Ray

In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma.Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that.Recently, the Atheist-evolutionists over at TalkOrigins voted me "Chief Loon" almost unanimous. Logically, this means I am the exact opposite.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.