Appeal for Multidisciplinary Outlet

This statement is meant as a suggestion, not as derogatory criticism.After having been here a mere 3 months I believe that the model under which this forum operates has one major problem. The model of this forum does not allow for multidisciplinary discourse.I understand that the method of doing things here has been tested by time through trial and error, and I am not suggesting that such a model should be abandoned, but rather be supplemented. By requiring that all debate be limited to arbitrarly narrow topics, the true beauty and therefore truth of many concepts, which are best, and under many circumstances only, conveyed through calling upon evidence from many areas of human experience essentially precludes a deeper understanding of the human condition.I do not understand why this forum has not allowed for multidisciplinary propositions, which are inherently complex and lengthy, while at the same time allows areas where religious belief systems and expositions of unusual and unpopular theories are accomodated.In my experience, people's worldviews are mutually supported by evidence from all fields together, including religion, politics, science, and philosophy. By tearing such a worldview into little pieces, as is done under these circumstances, subtracts from the knowledge one may gain by apprehending the entire system.I guess what I am arguing for is a method by which a statement of belief may be allowed to go beyond religion, and perhaps such statements already have an outlet, however, It is not clear to me exactly where such an outlet exists.Just a suggestion.

I agree that in general the interpretation of "on topic" is drawn rather too narrowly at EvC. Rich conversations grow in a fractal manner, but there often seems little room for that.But I digress.

This topic is a follow up to my closing of the YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution. In a nutshell, I thought the topic was way to diverse and should never have been promoted from the "Proposed New Topics" (PNT) forum.I have also posted in regards to this situation here at the "Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum" topic. There have been a number of subsequent messages posted there, none of which supply argument supporting that the topic should have been promoted from the PNT forum.The essence of why the topic in question was a bad PNT is forum rule 3: I say "wrong". We have several different science oriented forums within . Within those forums there are many, many topics.In the "YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution" topic you have many subtopics, each which could be a substantial stand alone topic. By putting all these various themes into one topic we will get either:1) A topic where many themes are discussed very superficially.
or
2) A topic where only a very few of the themes will get discussed in any depth.
or
3) Some combination of the above.In "YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution" you are essentially trying to compress all the the various science forums into an individual topic.Bottom line - I think there is a very good reason for rule 3.Adminnemooseus

I think the OP under discussion was narrowly focused, and here's the main point:Rejection of evolution, substituting YEC for it, would require dismantling a wide array of scientific disciplines.To my mind, while this point is widely overlooked in much of the evolution/creationism debate, it may be the single most important point that can be made in the debate. Arguing sundry small parts of the debate has validity, and EvC is a very good forum for that. But, in focusing exclusively on that sort of debate, you run the risk of missing the forest for the trees. And, I can't think of any other way to illustrate the consequences to all of science other than the kind of thread that anglagard started.If you disagree, I challenge you to find another way to make the argument.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

How about if the thread were refocused. I got piled on after I agreed with most of the OP about how YEC would change science. They piled on about my contention that "workaday" science should still function just fine. The tendency is to interrogate me about a lot of stuff I either can't answer or that's completely irrelevant. What's on that thread is a lot of straw man accusations and misrepresentations aimed at me at the moment.I propose that if it is reopened the focus be on the scientists explaining in detail just exactly how they think workaday science would be affected. If I contribute I should be asking questions instead of being made the usual butt of accusations and useless challenges. Or anybody else who takes the creationist position.

faith, if you don't want to debate, don't. and two or three people posting is not "piling on." i'm sorry you feel unable to answer the questions raised by your claims. but if you are ignorant of a subject, you might want to think before making an argument about it. you keep saying that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. that's what the op was. anglagard seems to be the geosciences, and he was listing the many facets of his field (and others he knows a bit about) that would be overturned. this "workaday" stuff is a useless distinction -- everyday science is theory,study, and application. you cannot separate one aspect from the others, just because you don't like the "interpretation."what's further, is that this is a distinction that you introduced. you cannot just make up a distinction, and then fail to provide a definition for it when asked. and asking you to explain what you mean is not "interrogation." the people who DO know a thing or two about science haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. and by your own admission, neither do you. this is very intellectually lazy and sloppy of you.defend your position. or failing that, at least explain your position. and failing that, for god's sake, stop whining about how unfair it is that you don't have the resources or education or information to answer even the most basic question about what you mean.

---

I'll post as I please and your advice is not welcome. Bug off.

The OP is meant to be an independent suggestion and not a defense of reopening the thread YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution

many threads get mired down in the basic questions of "what is evidence?" it seems evo's and creo's have different standards of evidence, and different ways of approaching it. the argument that yec'ism is an outright assualt on science in general, and a discussion of the extent of the damage that it seeks to do is important. people need to understand that it's not just some little evolutionary claim, but that for them "evolution" really means many different things, across many different fields, and removing it would dismantle modern science as we know it.chopping it up into little tiny pieces makes the problem looks small, and managable. "oh, all they say is this... we can handle that." but we play their game in thinking that it can be isolated and destroyed. it needs to be shown that their disagreements with "evolution" is systemic, and that it's really a disagreement with nearly all standards of science, and reaches into many categories of sciences.it may be incredibly hard to argue, i agree, but the point is valid nonetheless.

---

ahem. *I* will post as i please too.

... is the Faith way. The last time she tried to compare her view of the history of Earth with the views of geology(in Great Debate w/ Jazzns), she gave up.Faith claims to know little science, yet has many opinions on it. If she knows little, then it follows that she gets her information and opinions from some source. That source is selfadmittedly not a geology text, so perhaps she will post the creationist sources that constitute her opinion.Perhaps the creationist who does her thinking for her will be easier to understand and thus to debunk.ABB

or at least be willing to explain their opinion beyond insults, whining, and hand-waving.

---

My opinions are not about science as much as they are about what God says about historical facts that affect science. I don't argue science. God said it, I didn't, and I'm promoting the Biblical view.

inasmuch as this is a science board, when you do delve into science, where do you get your information?ABB

What God has to say about historical facts that affect science, he says to the scientists.