The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum

Yes, it's funny this forum never got used. I remember when it was being discussed and how necessary it seemed to me at the time.I thought of it as a place where Bible-based creationism could be argued without constantly having to deal with rude put-downs for challenging scientific positions; that is, a place where the usual accusations of Bible-inerrantist "wilful ignorance" and "refusal to learn," and "breath-taking arrogance" and the flat assertion that the Bible is nothing but an "archaic collection of myths" might be considered out of order, and an actual discussion of Bible inerrantist views of scientific questions might happen; a place where the Bible's testimony would be legitimately considered historical evidence. Considering the degree of contempt held by the science side of the EvC board for this point of view, I suppose it may not be a very realistic hope, but on the other hand it never really got tried either.Since ID is also included in the title of the forum, and forms of theistic creationism as well, and Bible-inerrantists are often engaged in arguments with those views too, it may be impossible to make a free zone for inerrantist premises even here. In any case it hasn't been given a good try. I'll try to think of some topics for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The idea was that it would be a mirror image of the science side, where the Bible inerrantist premise dictates the form of the discussion instead of the science premise. the Bible to be the rock bottom authority on this side of the divide. Of course that is already compromised by including theistic evolutionism and ID, which may not take an inerrantist view of the Bible. In any case, science arguments were to go on here as in the science fora, only without all the put-downs and insistence on science presuppositions.As I can see from the above posts it was certainly a pipe dream.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HOW it happened. This is of endless interest to us creationists if only because science is so adamant that it didn't happen at all. The scientists are in the business of debunking it at every turn, and we try to rescue it from the oblivion they are determined to leave it in. This is in fact what creationists do. There is all this complaint about how creationists don't exactly do science. That is valid to a point, but it's certainly not true that the creationists aren't thinking about all the scientific questions involved, or that we don't want to learn about them either. I personally am no doubt limited in how much of the science I could grasp, but it's not an attitude problem.What is not recognized on the science side, or at least not respected, is that apparent creationist evasion of the science conclusions is not a personality quirk (there are SO many insulting put-downs of that nature) but the only possible position one can take on the premise that the Biblical flood story is simply the truth as written.On this side of the divide there is no reason why the scientists can't continue to argue their scientific conclusions against the flood, but the Biblical creationist premise must be respected and the scientific premise lifted to the extent of resisting expressing the contempt based on that premise; ideally even making an effort to put oneself in the position of that belief for the sake of argument.This goes for the theistic creationists too, as they are just as contemptuous toward Bible creationists as the atheist scientists are, maybe more so.The reason this matters is not just that of course one dislikes being treated with contempt, but that discussions get derailed when the scientists throw up their hands at inevitable creationist arguments. I would still like to answer more specific cases in anglagard's thread about how much of science YECs actually dismiss, because I am certain it is far less than it is represented to be and I get tired of this endless silly accusation that creationists are somehow against science as such just because we are against evolution and old earth science. As I said, all the usual questions. How could there have been a flood considering all the reasons science thinks it couldn't have happened. How many animals were on the ark and how were they fed and how was the ark constructed and so on and so forth. How can the scientists possibly REALLY believe that those sediment layers represent eras of time. Etc.Now that I write it out, it seems to me the problem isn't that there isn't plenty to argue about, but that it's already been done to death. I have a thought or two but I'm not ready to start a thread at this point. Maybe later today.Edited by Faith, : changed theological to theistic creationists

Well, as a matter of fact, I was the one that got the ball rolling on it and was the most engaged in arguing for it.

See, if I were running this forum, that sort of stuff would be out of order here. First you'd be warned, and more of it would earn you a suspension.

Perfectly silly assessment of the situation considering that creationists are regularly suspended for failing to meet the science assumptions. We're a minority here and that's the only reason our assumption doesn't get any recognition. We are constantly judged by YOUR assumption instead. This forum was supposed to be Equal Time, unrealistically, considering the situation, but that was the idea.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see how your idea of theological argument would be any different than what already goes on in the Bible Accuracy forum or any of the endless theological arguments between YECs and liberal Christians and others elsewhere. No need for another thread for that purpose.And if jar's view is considered valid, there simply is no need for this forum at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is that there is no dearth of that sort of debate at evc already.

Does a particular topic come to mind?

To my mind that makes this forum useless. Which is probably why it hasn't been much used.

Usually what I consider stupid is the scientific case made on the science topics -- the latest example being the belief that a stack of fossils in discrete sedimentary layers has anything to do with genetic descent or vast eras of time.I don't even know what "theological" case I might have that I'd want to make. What's interesting is the scientific challenges.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Theological case for what? Perhaps it should be obvious but I have no idea what you have in mind.

There is no way to discuss those things without considering the usual scientific questions, and the consensus here seems to be that if the science is discussed it doesn't belong in this forum.

It is very hard if not impossible for me to separate out my Biblical views from the scientific views that are used to challenge it, which require scientific answers. I can't even imagine how I would do that. Even if I reject mainstream scientific conclusions, that certainly doesn't mean I reject the applicability of science to the question.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I disagree with your entire assessment of the situation.