Yep, must start with the Bible. No two ways about it.
A. Bible contains truth
B. create an hypothesis based on the Biblical 'observations'
C. Find contradictory observations in nature
D. a. proclaim that your initial hypothesis is correct, and fudge, lie, or distort further observations to support that b. rethink the hypothesis created in B. with the addition of the new evidence c. conclude that the Bible does not contain 'truths' of a scientific nature
Anastasia, your suggestions are good, but do you really think the average creationist makes "hypotheses" from the Bible? I don't think many of them would call them that. Options B and C are very good, as they include the old-earth creationists and IDists.
No, I think the average creationist believes that their handed down interpretation is truth. You asked for a method which includes ID and old earth, and the hypothesis idea is the only way to do that. Obviously, no one is going to call it an hypothesis, but if it is a claim open to further knowledge, it is effectively an hypothesis.
I am asking you not to make this an attempt to parody or laugh at Christians, but to use a Christian's opinion and insight. It is very humorous to make these little flow charts, but it is not accurate.
Christians do NOT all believe that the Bible is true on scientific matters. In fact, I have never heard a single sermon about science in my church.
Christians do NOT all believe that their interpretation of evidence, aka hypothesis, is correct.
If you want to narrow the focus back to literal, not Biblical, creationists, then your chart may be funny. Any interpretation of the Bible which does not contradict it is 'Biblical', but not all Biblical interpretations are literal.
Any claim can be open to further knowledge, but unless it is based upon real world observations it is not a hypothesis, or at least not a falsifiable one.
Why can't an interpretation of the Bible be falsifiable?
No, not really. Although you seem to be more open than your bretheren you still seem to be confused about terminology. A hypothesis is not just an "educated guess." Most people focus on the "guess" and not the "educated" part.
No, I am not confused about terminology. Any conclusion from the Bible is already presuming facts where there are none But for a general parallel of 'technique', I am using the same lingo.
You can defend your own position, but why extend the chalice to someone who doesn't express your own framework unless you are just defending the veneer of Christianity?
I am not really defending anything. It's just that most of the charts put up here were for literal, Biblical creationism, and Doddy wanted to include ID and old earth as well. IMO you can only reach those positions if you are willing to change your 'guess' about the 'facts' in the Bible.
What is the difference between Biblical and literal creationists?
What makes your view better? Or more real?
When it comes to the Bible, there are any number of ways to read it, and all of them are 'Biblical' but not all of them are literal.
The Bible says God created in 6 days, but elsewhere it says a day is like a 1000 years. Within Genesis itself you can question whether the system of 'days' could exist before the creation of the sun. So, some people take the 6 days literally, and some don't, but as long as you don't stray from what is written, and make up something that is completely contradictory like 'God didn't create at all'...then you are 'Biblical'.
I don't remember saying anything about having a better or more real view.
Do you know how to make it apply to both, or do you think I should do another for their system?
I don't think YEC's have a system. And I don't even mean 'YEC's' as in, that one belief alone puts anyone squarely into the literalist category.
Put it this way.
Some people are willing to admit they may be wrong, and some people aren't. Neither of them may be admitting that the Bible is wrong. They will say that the Bible is not being read correctly. Both types are starting with the Bible as prime source of knowledge. Only one will go back to the drawing board when they meet with conflicting real world evidence.
If you just want a method for how creationists find out what is 'true' about the world, you have to, have to, have to, use the Bible as the first step. It might be the only step, which is no method at all. Or, someone may be willing to take other outside facts into consideration, as in Old Earth.
Also, should that box link back to the big red "Bible is true" box?
The 're-evaluate interpretation' box? That one I say yes.
This is pretty good, only thing I would change is the 'perhaps' part. I see what you are getting at, but it is a little vague about the observations. It makes it sound like the observations are faulty rather than the interpretation? I suggest something like 'do observations contradict your interpretation?'...followed by 're-evaluate interpretation' and the other choices 'ignore' 'manipulate'.
As far as disclaimers, maybe you could color code. Or, do the two charts.
Doddy, I don't see the changes reflected on the page?
I forgot that you were doing this for EvoWiki. That was the reason originally why I used similar wording as what you would find with a scientific method, so that there would be a parallel which showed the faults with Creation Science. The main fault is the unwillingness to create a new 'hypothesis' when observations don't support theirs.
However, I think the word 'perhaps' that I have preceding the scripture reintepretation process is a bit presumptious, as it, to me, already assumes a reintepretation before that process can be taken. If, for example, something very clearly contradicted the bible (pi isn't 3 exactly or a bat isn't a bird), one would have to already reinterpret the bible rather than the science in order to answer 'perhaps'. That's just the feeling I get - sorry if I'm not clear.
Yep, don't need the 'perhaps'. An observation either contradicts scripture or the interpretation of scripture, or it does not. Or it is inconclusive, in which case, who cares?
I roadtested it with, as an example, radiometric dating showing the old age of the earth. This observation doesn't support six-day creation. In fact, it might contradict it. But we can reinterpret the book of genesis to have a few creations or make the days longer.
So, didn't you ask for a chart which included old earthers?