What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

Percy, I am confused. Are you saying that it is ok to look into creationism as a possible scientific reality, as long as it is not Christo-centric {I made that up, yes} or coming from a specified agenda? What you have written seems vaguely contradictory, because I thought you wanted articulate, informed Creationists...but the bulk of the debate wishes to show that there is no argument which can possibly make creationism or ID worthy of mention.I like that everyone be articulate, but the best I can hope for is that Creationists be informed enough to know the difference between a site which teaches history via the Bible, and a site that gives you the archaelogical dope straight up. They need to be aware of what they are up against.I of course do not feel that religion should be elitist, but I will do my own propagandizing song and dance for a sec. Modern fundamentalist, non-denominational, Bible based groups churn out 'experts' faster than McDonald's produces burgers. It is very attractive to have this feeling that you are accepted, that you can go far and be successful by following and memorizing the Word. You don't need college, or testing, or any of the character development or language and grammar skills that one would aquire along the way. I know this is true, because if I did not feel comfortable with the 'expertise' I have in Christianity, I would certainly not have posted or joined EvC. I could not contribute in any other area.Religion is not necessarily stupid or for the ignorant. Unfortunately, it is something which allows otherwise stupid people to suddenly feel like they should be preaching. I would not put any of our regular members into that category, they are more likely over-zealous and eh, a bit off in their own world.

Hm. I had a friend of mine join, and he was scared off by the sophisticated arguments. I don't know if he is creationist or not actually...Guess we should take it as a compliment?

Just to clarify, I would say it is the admins job to monitor everyone, especially notoriously bad or off topic posters. The conversation Buz mentioned was more a general call for creo-ish admins to help out with creo members so that they will perhaps realize that it is their behaviour and not their opinion which is problematic.

Sorry, I am not trying to be argumentative, but I guess I don't see the difference here. Inerrancy {to me} = creation is scientific. I think I am missing something in what you are saying.What is your criteria for 'informed'?

I didn't mean to put you through all this trouble. Of course I can in theory distinguish 'science' and 'religion'. I see. In EvC land at the moment, me thinks there is still a lot of veiled evangelization, aimed more at getting scientists to accept God as part and parcel of the 'whole' and not incongruous with it, rather than outright attempts at creation science. It is a slight difference, in both cases there is a desperate attempt to protect belief. One method is to confront science itself and deny the accuracy/validity of it with other 'evidences', and the second is to revolutionize and update God's role, a God of the gaps.Hard to explain without giving examples or naming names. I think you have to look at someone's motivations, and not all creationists are pushing creaion science so much as protecting personal beliefs in irrational ways.

Nah, I think he is saying that when Catholics misapply scripture, they cease to be Christians. No exceptions there.