Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

I don't know. I believe that an intelligent designer is the most reasoned answer. You seem to think that the only conclusions that we come to about ourselves and our environment are things that we can know for sure through the empirical method. If I had that type of evidence then reason wouldn't be necessary. Science tells me that we rotate around the sun and not the other way around. It takes virtually no reason to agree.It is only when we have to come to conclusions about things like; why we have consciousness that it does actually require reason? To make a decision we review all the information that is available to us and reason out a conclusion. It may or it may not be right, but at least we haven’t just deserted reason and declared that we are unable to decide.I'll repeat. When I consider my consciousness, the delicate balance in nature of the world and universe etc my reasoning tells me that it is an invention by an intelligent inventor. My reasoning isn't infallible. I accept that I may be wrong. That's the thing about reason, we just do the best we can with the brain God gave us. You probably won't accept this as answering your question. You only seem to think that empirical evidence counts. Life just isn't always like that. It is your choice to sit on the fence and say I don't know enough to take up any position on the issue without somebody making it easy by finding irrefutable evidence. That's your choice, but I still say it's a cop out. I come to Theism by reason and Christianity by faith. (Although I do find Christianity logical and consistent with life experience, it is still faith.)

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This is not a long held view or anything. It was just a response to what Chiro said.It just occured to me that natural selection alone would cause us to largely respond to things in a similar manner as do animals that are of the same type that don't have external influences. (ie: pets are influenced by people and breeding)It was just a quick thought and if you don't agree that's fine.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

What difference? They are the same. Things are what they are. It is all in how we look at them. Since when does natural exclude design? How is it separate from nature? We have this misconception that we are not natural? Nature has the ability to design. We are natural. We are not the only life form that designs. Intelligence and design are natural. They are a property of the process.We are not even sure where a boudary for intelligence or intelligent design exists or if there even is one. All things learn in some form or another. Cells learned to replicate. We simply learn on a different level. How you look at things makes all the difference in what you can find. Evidence of countless things are all around us. It is asking the right questions...to do this one must look at them differently. Hence philosophy. Yes. It's where it belongs at this time. I do not think the world is ready for "scientific" proof of such a thing. However my above statements are pretty natural.

Time is a concept.

quote:

---

I don't know.

---

Right.You don't know.You just believe that there are no natural causes for certain properties of our existence.

quote:

---

I believe that an intelligent designer is the most reasoned answer.

---

You haven't used "reason alone" to reach the ID conclusion.You simply believe it.As PaulK said, you are rationalizing your belief and simply saying that you have used "reason alone", but you have done nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

You seem to think that the only conclusions that we come to about ourselves and our environment are things that we can know for sure through the empirical method.

---

We can't know anything for sure using the scientific method. We can only do our best to come closer and closer to perfect knowledge knowing that we will never get there.YOU are the one who has been making the absolute statements regarding what can and can't have natural origins.

quote:

---

If I had that type of evidence then reason wouldn't be necessary. Science tells me that we rotate around the sun and not the other way around. It takes virtually no reason to agree.

---

Er, I think we may be using very different definitions of the word "reason".I am using the word to mean something like:to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.It very much takes reason to accept the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System. It took centuries of scientific effort to figure it out, and it was an enormously revolutionary (pun intended) finding that changed the world in profound ways.To trivialize that enlightenment is to utterly disregard the shoulders of the scientific giants we are currently standing on.Tell me, did YOU learn that the Earth orbits the sun by viewing the night sky every night for years, carefully tracking the planetary motions and developing your own geometry and algebra?Why don't you provide the definition of "reason" you are using?

quote:

---

It is only when we have to come to conclusions about things like; why we have consciousness that it does actually require reason?

---

This requires reason no more or less than any other question.

quote:

---

To make a decision we review all the information that is available to us and reason out a conclusion. It may or it may not be right, but at least we haven’t just deserted reason and declared that we are unable to decide.

---

But unless you can explain how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a naturalistic one that we do not currently or will never understand, you are not using reason to then conclude that an Intelligent Desinger exists.

quote:

---

I'll repeat. When I consider my consciousness, the delicate balance in nature of the world and universe etc my reasoning tells me that it is an invention by an intelligent inventor. My reasoning isn't infallible. I accept that I may be wrong. That's the thing about reason, we just do the best we can with the brain God gave us.

---

But you aren't using reason alone, to reach this conclusion.You are making rather large leaps past reason, actually.

quote:

---

You probably won't accept this as answering your question. You only seem to think that empirical evidence counts.

---

In determining what conclusions about Biology are derived by "reason alone", it surely counts for everything.

quote:

---

Life just isn't always like that. It is your choice to sit on the fence and say I don't know enough to take up any position on the issue without somebody making it easy by finding irrefutable evidence. That's your choice, but I still say it's a cop out.

---

Let's say that I hand you a document in Japanese and ask you to translate it into English.I hand you a Japanese/English dictionary, but every other page is torn out, so you are not able to translate enough of the document to make much sense of it.Are you "copping out" of the translation, or were you just not given enough information to do the job?

quote:

---

It just occured to me that natural selection alone would cause us to largely respond to things in a similar manner

---

It depends what you mean by "similar"Many of our basic responses to stimuli are similar.However, this is only in the most general sense. For example, most people are similarly suceptable to the same logical fallacies.With training, however we can learn to become aware of them and learn to avoid them.

quote:

---

as do animals that are of the same type that don't have external influences. (ie: pets are influenced by people and breeding)

---

People have lots of external influences, too.

quote:

---

What difference? They are the same.

---

No, the ID supporters say that we can, indeed, tell the difference.If you are saying that we can't tell the difference, then OK.

quote:

---

Things are what they are. It is all in how we look at them.

---

Sure. But now you have moved ID away from science even further.

quote:

---

Since when does natural exclude design?

---

It doesn't. The "designer", however, is natural selection. Or wind and water or glaciers or sandstorms, etc.

quote:

---

How is it separate from nature? We have this misconception that we are not natural? Nature has the ability to design. We are natural. We are not the only life form that designs. Intelligence and design are natural. They are a property of the process.We are not even sure where a boudary for intelligence or intelligent design exists or if there even is one. All things learn in some form or another.

---

Many things in nature do not learn.And many things that happen in nature are mindless and random.

quote:

---

Cells learned to replicate.

---

Can you tell me how something without a brain can learn?How do organic molecules learn?

quote:

---

We simply learn on a different level. How you look at things makes all the difference in what you can find. Evidence of countless things are all around us. It is asking the right questions...to do this one must look at them differently. Hence philosophy.

---

That kind of philosophy sounds an awful lot like religious spin-doctoring apologetics to me.

Hi schrafI only have a minute I'm pretty much the same. How about this:
To form an opinion or conclusion, from whatever information or evidence is available. I came to what a believe is a reasonable opinion or conclusion through reason, and as a result I believe it until such time as there is more evidence available to cause me to change my opinion. I have not said that. I personally am convinced that of the two options the concept an an intelligent designer makes more sense than pure random chance. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. This supports my point. Even with half the pages there should be enough information to come to some kind of opinion about what it is about. You aren't going to conclude what it is you believe until someone spells everything out in black and white. That ain't gonna happen. It is still a cop out.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, how about a third option which makes more sense than either?We call it "evolution".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

---

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell

If you had read the thread you'd know that I have no problem with evolution by natural selection. The question is this, is evolution the product of an external intelligence or did it happen by random chance.

Neither. Evolution happened by the action of natural selection on random mutation.If you know about natural selection, what does your question mean?

Kent Hovind was against putting I.D. into schools.Same with Carl Baugh.AnwsersinGenesis was also opposed to it,and are infact so tired of the false accusations that they are hiring a P.R. firm just to make sure that everybody knows they were and are against it.Old Earth "creationists" like Hugh Ross and Rhana also strongly opposed it. Misrepresented (Sigh) Time and Time Again | Answers in Genesis These were isolated decisions by people in SOME districts.Most people dont even understand Creationism (I didnt till recently). You have I.D. supporters debating Ron Reagan and neither understands the issue.Ron Reagan used evidence that Creationism was false by saying "we have seen new species created" and his debating opponent couldnt respond to him.Honestly, that say it all.The evry evidence Reagan used was evidence Creationists use to support their theory.Neither Reagan or his "Creationist" guest (just a small town preacher)had a clue.

I would not argue against that the major YEC individuals and/or organinzations are opposed to the teaching of ID, and are perhaps against ID theory (whatever that is???) as a whole.But some YEC's (and I'm thinking of someone outside of ) will grasp at absolutely anything that they think might put a nick into old Earth/geological evolution theory or biological evolution theory. In essence, they are knee-jerk anti-evolutionists, even if the matter is also anti-YEC.Those YEC's probably do such because the "real ID experts" are vague on how their ID theory might mesh with old Earth evolutionism.Michael Behe is perhaps the number one poster boy for ID. HE IS AN OLD EARTH EVOLUTIONIST! I think some variety of theistic evolutionist. The difference between his position and mainstream evolutionary theory is actually extremely minor. Esentially, he is trying to find God's fingerprints on the evolutionary process. But God does not leave unambigious fingerprints.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

We do respond to things just like animals! We are animals. Ever been in a crowd at sports event?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Your tactic is a common one: declare that your own particular pick-n-mix of creationist nonsense is the One True Creationism, and that anyone arguing against any different version doesn't understand creationism.The fact is that while half of creationists argue that observing the origin of species supports creationism rather than the Origin of Species, the other half are still pretending that no new species have been observed: including, for example, the Institute for Creation Research.Anyone debating a specific creationist has to debate his version of creationism, not yours.