Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

The buzsaw contention is that if ID exists, involving the existence in the universe of higher intelligence than is normally observed on this one little speck of a planet called earth, it can be regarded as scientific. Like evolution, until the evidence of it is empirically falsified, then and only then does it cease to be science.There exists archeological, biological, historical and other evidence which can be interpreted in different ways. Some students and practitioners of science interpret the evidence to be indicative of ID. Others contend that it is not. The observation, discussion, experimentation, exploration, analyzing et al of the evidence being observed, whether from the IDist viewpoint or otherwise is practicing science whether the ideological majority evo secularists like to admit this or not. Just because they enjoy bully pulpit advantage in the media and classrooms does not mean they have a corner on science, to use a commodity trader's term.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I would agree to some extent of what you're saying. The problem with the above is that the majority YEC arguments are not Biblically literistic. Imo, the majority YEC arguments are not Biblical!! For example:1. In context of Scripture as a whole, Genesis one does not say the whole universe was created in one series of events in terms of thousands of years.
2. In Biblical context as a whole, God has eternally existed, being "the same today, yesterday and forever," implying that he has eternally been creating, destroying and managing his universe.
3. There is no Biblical literal timespan given in days one through four of Genesis one.Buzsaw's IDistic creationist conclusion: Neither the earth nor the universe are necessarily Biblically YEC. Yes, and until my dear creationist brothers and sisters let the words be literal and until they cease and decist insisting on YEC pertaining to all creation of the universe, they will be loosers in the debate.Having said the above, my disclaimer is that I am by no means an evolutionist. I AM A YEC IDIST INASMUCH AS I BELIEVE IN YEC PERTAINING TO ALL LIFE ON PLANET EARTH.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi Admin/Percy. To avoid straying from topic on the Faith/EvC thread I will respond here to your message http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC I don't see any IDist science as ever being acceptable to your standards, Admin/Percy. How can any argument which is IDist be acceptable to you as true science when in fact any argument based on IDist premise requires a supernatural higher intelligence in lieu of some aspects of origins pertaining what is observed in the universe?For example, if one is to present an IDist scientific hypothesis on how the first animals came to be, one must present a reason for rejecting mainstream dating tech relative to fossils. My argument would be that uniformitarianism is not proven so nobody knows how much of this or that element was in the atmosphere and in living things tens of thousands to millions of years ago. Neither, imo, has science really proven how much the surrounding inorganic burial environs in which fossils are embeded affect the fossil's date reading when in fact the burial site elements would show an older age. I know that argument is unacceptable but I'm not convinced and evidently neither is any IDist young life scientist for whatever reason. This likely will not fly IYO and thus there is no acceptable debate with IDist creos in the science forums at EvC. Isn't that the case, or where've I gone wrong here? If I'm not mistaken in the above, then are here pretending to debate Evo vs creo if all IDist creos are to be excluded from the science debate? As per your apparant standards, even Robert Morris himself of ICR and Mr. Gish would be out of line in your science debate forums.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Couple the two of Admin's messages, the one below being from the OP of this thread and go figure.1. "...ID isn't science......"
2. "...Biblical literalism....." unacceptable.
3. Does Discovery Institute speak for the majority of IDist creos? I don't know. I'm asking.Ninety percent of serious and active contenders of Evolution in the evo/creo debate arena are IDists and Biblical fudamentalists/literalists who's arguments are unacceptable as science in EvC's science forums. Herein lies the problem of ever having a balance in active IDist creo membership and real bolts and nuts real life evo/creo debate. The great majority of creos are fundamentalist evangelicals who are excluded from debating their science as they understand and believe it is. Biblical premised science factors in the evidence of intelligence existing in the universe of a different level than that of humans, evidence which we believe exists and which secularists catagorically deny. We believe that to be a scientific aspect of our hypotheses. The viable possibility of it's existence renders it a legitimate factor in the science hypothetical debate in our view and to exclude it from debate in science is to deny us what we consider our fair share/role in the evo/creo controversy. Our professional scientists know that so why should they bother to come here to be insulted, restricted and abused?Perhaps the solution would be to have an alternative science forum for what is considered by mainstream as pseudoscience or something of that nature to accomodate what I consider to be the [i]real evc/creo debate going on out there in real life among the laity/ bourgois. I suppose it all depends on how elite Admin wants this site to be.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

As per this thread my message 162 pertained mostly to the OP of this thread part of which was quoted. (I should have quoted you as Percy and not Admin. My apologies for that.) In your OP of this thead you repeat that ID is not science. I see that as a major problem if we can have fair and balanced debate in science. I believe you are falsely alleging that there are no ID scientists who research science et al. Is the implication here what you really mean to say?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Since this may lead off topic from the specifics of this thread, I'll open another Is It Science thread on what science is.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28