I never understood biblical creationism but there is a lot i do not understand.
I think it safe to say that biblical creationists don't understand it either. It doesn't help that they go out of their way to prevent any kind of discussion of the matter. All they seem interested in is using their creationism to proselytize, so the moment they realize that you know what you are talking about, they try to terminate communication as quickly as possible, usually by becoming extremely and increasingly unpleasant in order to drive you away -- I can bear through that bullshit because I've been through a divorce (first season episode of "The Orville", the XO, the CO's ex-wife, is being interrogated with torture to which she says, "I've gone through a divorce! There's nothing worse you can do to me!"). They turn out to be complete and utter assholes who make Faith on her worst days seem like an extremely pleasant Girl Scout.
On my site, I have a page,
Encounters with Creationists, in which I present what I think is going on with that. Nor am I the only one to notice such a pattern. Carl Drews is a fundamentalist I met on-line who learned very early that "creation science" claims are pure BS. He and his family joined a church that they liked because they were doing good work, but then it turned out that they were dedicated to "creation science". The final straw was when the pastor advocated "lying for the Lord" just so long as it opposed evolution. Here is what Carl had posted on his website about encounters with creationists (
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/...oung-Earth Creationists):
quote:
Typical Encounters with Young-Earth Creationists
A few times I have written to the authors of young-earth creationist publications, pointing out some inaccuracy or a faulty analysis. The encounter follows the following pattern:
I write to them.
They write back to me refusing to admit error; "I make no apologies." They defend their position and manner of expressing it. I notice some misinterpretation of my letter, or ignoring of what I clearly said.
If I write back to them a second time, rebutting their response or bringing up another point,
Their communication becomes unpleasant.
At this point I have nothing further to do with them.
My last contact with Carl was around 2002, nearly two decades ago, so I don't know how active he is in the discourse, though his site is still up. Interestingly, in an engineering trade journal there was an article about him working on an experiment to explain the Parting of the Red Sea.
I gained most of my knowledge of Christian fundamentalism around 1970 as a "fellow traveler" of the Jesus Freak Movement at Ground Zero (Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA) -- I had already become an atheist a half-decade prior by reading the Bible and everything I learned from the Jesus Freaks only confirmed that I had made the right decision. One of many benefits from that experience (such as knowing their deceptive proselytizing tactics) is an understanding of where they are coming from, how they think. Or at the very least some sympathy for them and the corners that they keep painting themselves into.
It appears to me that they and the "intelligent design" late-to-the-party lads seem to take the position that if natural processes had provided these outcomes, then that disproves God. In contrast, my view is that their Creator god would have created all the natural processes involved, so outcomes from natural processes do in fact
not disprove God (Phat, I suspect that you are yourself of a like mind, or would be).
So what I see happening is that these "biblical creationists" are taking their theology and choosing to dictate
how God must have created. Furthermore, they are dictating that their own arbitrary pronouncements of how the universe
must be or else God does not exist (... numerous variations on this theme, but they are all essentially the same).
Basically, the bottom line is that these "biblical creationists" have their own ideas of how their "creator god" had to have created and they wish to impose those ideas on their god. I now forget the source, but somebody once pointed out that dictating to God what He can and cannot do is a very bad idea.