A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science"

Jet writes:

---

Nice try Q! But your opinion is totally worthless to me. Sorry!

---

Gee, Jet, how Christian of you! Did you ever have an unpleasant thought that you decided to keep to yourself?Quetzal suggested in Message 31 that you pick just a couple points from your list to focus on, and instead you once again avoid discussion. Mark replied in detail in Message 29, but you haven't answered him, either. Is it possible that, as I suggested in Message 30, you're not competent to discuss the very points you yourself introduced?More generally I think we're all wondering why you're here. You seem interested in declaration rather than discussion, avoiding the latter at every opportunity, and when challenged on a point you often become insulting. You don't seem temperamentally suited for tolerating differences of opinion. Are you sure you want to be here?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

***Actually, there are a vast number of discoveries that have disproved big parts of the TOE.

---

Well?(re post 29)You made the claim, now back it up with something other than a laundry list of perceived absent evidences. Absent evidence is not positive evidence of anything. Positive scientific evidence that concludes the ToE is false, please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I think it is counterproductive among educated people, because it means you must make the choice between your faith and intellectual honesty with yourself. My husband stopped going to his Christian church when he was about 11 or 12 because what he had learned about dinosaurs and astonomy (both interests of his, then and now) was at odds with what he was being taught in Church. Even at that young age, it didn't make any sense to him to believe something taken literally from an ancient book in spite of the evidence found in nature. He tells me that he might have remained a Christian if his church hadn't insisted that he leave his mind and reason behind.

​

On the other hand, dumbing down the bible to a literal interpretation, rather than having to teach the nuance of context and all the other such complexities certainly makes being a fundamentalist Christian simpler. It is much more black and white, and therefore much less struggle to learn and understand takes place.

​

Like I have said before, in America we would much rather feel good than think well. Thinking well is hard, and it's scary. It is much easier to be told what to think, and religions which are big on strict dogma make thinking and internal struggle a non-issue.

​

---

Using Shraf's message, as another attempt to bump the discussion back to on topic.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Sorry Moose, I'll open a new thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mark - I'm not sure what the topic you were running with is, but I suspect there must be an existing topic (prob. several) for it.I think I'm striving for more of a "creationism and evolution can get along" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic (added by edit on 8/19/02 - topic is at http://EvC Forum: Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God ).Have a nice day, Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-19-2002]

Not striving for anything, I just took issue with one of Jets comments. This is the way it goes, I'm afraid, topics seem to fly off on a tangent. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Originally posted by minnemooseus:I think I'm striving for more of a "creationism and evolution can get along" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic.Have a nice day, Moose***This is an interesting concept, however it would require the abandonment of of the Bible. There may be some who call themselves creationists who may be willing to do so, but I am not one of them. Once you have chosen to abandon the Bible, why choose creation over evolution. Schraf abandoned the Bible but she did not remain a creationist. She chose evolution over creation as the most logical explanation as to why life exists as it does on this planet. Personally, I do not see the logic in thinking along the lines of creation through evolution. It appears to be the perfect oxymoron.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

The link Moose provided to start this thread presents the opinion that Creation Science is more a discouragement to religious faith than anything else, and proposes an approach reconciling conservative Christian views with science. Either of these topics seems more than enough for a single thread, so Moose's point that the "Evolution isn't science" diversion belongs in another thread is a good one.There is, in fact, an Evolution is Not Science thread already started in the Is It Science forum. The discussion could be moved there, or a new thread could be begun. Jet, perhaps you could repost a copy of your message in that thread or in a new thread?--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

The link Moose provided to start this thread presents the opinion that Creation Science is more a discouragement to religious faith than anything else, and proposes an approach reconciling conservative Christian views with science. Either of these topics seems more than enough for a single thread, so Moose's point that the "Evolution isn't science" diversion belongs in another thread is a good one.
--EvC Forum Administrator

---

I must admit that my personal input, to this topic, has really been nothing beyond posting a few links of sites to consider. It is difficult to determine what the line of discussion of this topic should be. I need to get back to the site I cited in the initial message of this topic, and look it over again.At this point, I have started three different topics atemping to explore a more middle ground perspective of creationism:Besides this one, there was also:
Theistic Evolution
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=8&t=63&p=2And:
Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=6&p=1Since the essence of evscform.net is the debate of the perceived conflicts between creationism and science, any topics concerning the unification of creationism and science are perhaps, in essence, non-topics. Only the YAC perspective finds objections; except for perhaps the atheistic extreme, the science side is much in agreement.Once again, not a real coherent message. I really don't know what to say.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

By edit - message deleted - thought withdrawn.Moose

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
The link Moose provided to start this thread presents the opinion that Creation Science is more a discouragement to religious faith than anything else, and proposes an approach reconciling conservative Christian views with science. Either of these topics seems more than enough for a single thread, so Moose's point that the "Evolution isn't science" diversion belongs in another thread is a good one.

​

There is, in fact, an Evolution is Not Science thread already started in the Is It Science forum. The discussion could be moved there, or a new thread could be begun. Jet, perhaps you could repost a copy of your message in that thread or in a new thread?

---

As requested.......
Message reposted in:
Evolution versus Creationism
Is It Science?
Evolution is Not Science
Page 15
Message #225 Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
...When dealing with questions of the natural and not the spiritual world, why would you seek answers in a religious book?

​

--Percy

​

***I think the more important question would be, "Why would anyone who isn't 100% positive about his assertions, deny that the Bible is the Holy Word of God and, in effect, call God a liar?"***Jet

---

Does this mean you aren't going to answer Percy's question?

If it helps move this along, I can answer Jet's question first.No one is calling God a liar. But I've been handed a book by a person, not by God, and that person is telling me the Bible contains the literally inerrant word of God. I'm simply asking the person to support that contention.Reconciliation between evolution and evangelical Christianity probably requires some compromise on the part of the latter concerning whether the Bible should be consulted regarding scientific matters.--Percy

Originally posted by edge:
Does this mean you aren't going to answer Percy's question?***Actually, I did answer in message #17 and elaborated further in message #19.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Originally posted by edge:

​

***Actually, I did answer in message #17 and elaborated further in message #19.***

​

---

Nowhere in those messages do you give reasons *why* you should use the Bible to answer questions about nature. You merely reasserted that you do.------------------
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." - Chomsky