|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are creationists returning to their YEC roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Is it just me, or has there really been an increase in threads discussing YEC viewpoints recently? It almost seems like the ID defeat in Dover has spurred into action YEC creationists, who presumably had been sitting on their hands waiting to see if ID could wedge its way into public education, hopeful that YEC viewpoints could follow close behind.
As much as ID isn't science, I don't see this as its biggest problem. At least as promoted by the Discovery Institute, the biggest problem for ID is its willingness to forgo any connection to Biblical literalism. ID accepts most findings of modern science and rejects little. Indeed, its primary criticism of science is that it is insufficiently inclusive because it ignores evidence for design and is wedded to methodological naturalism. Were ID to find itself comfortably ensconced in educational programs, it's greatest foe would quickly become Biblical literalists. So my view is that the ID defeat has caused YECists to realize that ID is not the powerful ally they hoped, making its disregard of Biblical literalism, already obvious but carefully ignored, a rather obvious concern. YECs have now left the sidelines from which they watched the ID drama in Dover last year and in Washington with the BSOW escapade the year before and are back actively promoting YEC views. Or so it seems to me. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There has certainly been an increase recently. It's a bit early to decide if this is a trend or just part of the normal ups and downs.
I haven't noticed a similar change at the usenet talk.origins group.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
usually, an antelope fights the hardest just before the lion finally kills it.
maybe we'll get lucky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I agree with your assessment. The sheep's clothing didn't work, so it's back to bad polyester.
holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Let me begin by saying I admire your collective knowledge and have a respect for many of your varied abilties and willingness to share information. That is of great vallue. You are an amusing bunch. You are all indeed intelligent enough to understand the nature of the argument.The cliche that resides here has an agenda to point out technical errors in peoples thinking on this subject. The implications of why you are obsessed with this is disturbing. Those that believe in ID or creationism do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Even though you are aware of this and know that no matter what you say it will not change thier view, you still foolishly persist. You are all aware of the role religious teaching has taken in societies.Yet you revel like little children in the pointless arguments you make. Debate for debates sake is just a foolish game. So tell me in your own words what exactly is the point or purpose of getting technical on the bible or any other religious teachings? Your aproach has not led to an uderstanding of any kind.Now if this sight were to encourage a technical look at religious writings while recognising the solid social values they all have in common I might have some respect for the lot of you. This tells me that what motivates you is disturbing or you are truly highly educated fools. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-04-2006 10:37 AM This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-04-2006 09:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi 2ice_baked_taters,
I'll just respond to the sliver of your post that was on-topic:
2ice_baked_taters writes: Those that believe in ID or creationism do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Yes, we know. That's why the YEC arguments that are enjoying a mild rebound here at the moment have been such a puzzle to science-minded folk for decades. While it might be true that creationists accept creationism for reasons having nothing to do with science, they do not themselves believe this. YEC's bring their arguments here and to boards of education where it is argued that their views *are* science. Clearly they don't believe creationism does not have a scientific foundation. Which brings us to your next point:
Even though you are aware of this and know that no matter what you say it will not change thier view, you still foolishly persist. You'll often hear evolutionists clarify that they are presenting an argument not because they believe it will convince the other person, but because they believe it is important for the rest of the audience who, it is assumed, include some not so wedded to the creationist viewpoint. They feel this way because an informed public is science's best weapon in the battle against frippery, pseudo-science and true nonsense. We evolutionists are not really such a bad bunch. If creationists would stop interfering in science education the debate would cease. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
2bt writes: Those that believe in ID or creationism do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: As much as ID isn't science, I don't see this as its biggest problem. At least as promoted by the Discovery Institute, the biggest problem for ID is its willingness to forgo any connection to Biblical literalism. ID accepts most findings of modern science and rejects little. Indeed, its primary criticism of science is that it is insufficiently inclusive because it ignores evidence for design and is wedded to methodological naturalism. Were ID to find itself comfortably ensconced in educational programs, it's greatest foe would quickly become Biblical literalists. 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.
Percy writes: So my view is that the ID defeat has caused YECists to realize that ID is not the powerful ally they hoped, making its disregard of Biblical literalism, already obvious but carefully ignored, a rather obvious concern. YECs have now left the sidelines from which they watched the ID drama in Dover last year and in Washington with the BSOW escapade the year before and are back actively promoting YEC views. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Your aproach has not led to an uderstanding of any kind. I completely disagree. I have learned much from everyone in here. I've learned about evolution, and physics, and logic. It has also made my faith stronger, and clarified my faith. It has shown me the separation between science and faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I do not come here to flail agenst an oppenent that is so dense about anything that you would mistake thier head for a black hole, but to enjoy a good debate and maybe learn or teach someone something they wanted to know about
the problem is the other person doesn't want to sometimes as for the YEC's i think they realized that ID will not get them what they want so they are returning to YEC which will not help them eather it seems
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
good show RR
we do not have to agree on everything the world wouldn't be very interesting if we did
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
You'll often hear evolutionists clarify that they are presenting an argument not because they believe it will convince the other person, but because they believe it is important for the rest of the audience who, it is assumed, include some not so wedded to the creationist viewpoint. They feel this way because an informed public is science's best weapon in the battle against frippery, pseudo-science and true nonsense There are many here who use "science" to argue thier philosophical views. In fact most here I have seen have manifested such behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Well Percy, as you stated in another thread, taken to it's logical conclusion ID has to accept the possibility that Evolution itself might have been designed. Not what they want to hear!
YEC, on the other hand, is clearly based on faith in the literal truth of the Bible. Now, I've just had a spat over evidence with a certain YECer (Hi Faith! ) in the science forum. It seems to me that the YECers would make a much better case for their position if they just held up their hands and admitted that it all comes down to faith. I find it somewhat ironic how so many "people of faith" attempt to cover up their faith, so to speak!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I have been exploring more about ID, and my conclusion seems to be that YEC's stick to thier base arguments, god being the creator, 6 day creation, 6000 years,etc. most of thier arguments are clear for the most part
ID on the other hand is hard to understand considering that a lot of the leaders shift thier arguments and change how ID works, while trying to play both sides to the middle. they try to be pretend to be science on one hand and try to be religion on the other, without dropping the balls dover also kind of hurt the, since behe admited that ID is about as much science as astrology is.both the people thinking it was science and the people trying to frame god under science saw it was a waste since they shot themselves in the foot after dover
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
{Content deleted}
Edited by gasby, : Upon adminmoose's request.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024