My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

But the scientific method is in fact the method followed by scientists.He might as well say: "Courtroom procedure in the US is for the two attorneys to toss a coin to decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent". It is in fact a rebuttal of that to point out that this is not what the attorneys actually do; nor is it a mere argument from authority to point this out. He may, if he wishes, argue that it would be more just and equitable to toss a coin, but he cannot argue that it is courtroom procedure to do so, because it is not what people do in courtrooms.And in the same way, scientists do not in fact follow his epistemological program of naive inductionism, and so when he describes this he is not describing the scientific method. What he is describing might be what he would like people to do, but it is not a description of science. I didn't say that, though it's true. What I said was that because they know about anatomy they would not make the mistake you wished to foist on them, and I explained why.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, we've seen precious little in the way of any creationist trying to come up with an answer to the question in the OP.The guy who came nearest to even attempting to answer the question was Mazzy, although as his answer involved the Buddha being overweight it combined the inaccurate with the ad hominem.He soon reverted to form, though, with mere whining about evolution and statements such as: "For me it does not matter which creation model is correct, as long as none of my ancestors were apes."I suppose credit should be given to IamJoseph, who produced the foolowing staggering monstrous falsehood as a reason for his partiality to Genesis: "Genesis, unlike other ancient writings, includes names, places, dates, numbers, rivers, mountains, geneologies ..." OK, it's a load of cobblers, nor would it be a convincing argument even if it was true, but it is a reason. Credit where credit is due.---The difficulty of answering the question stems directly from the nature of creationist apologetics. 99% of creationism is not, nor ever has been, an attempt to validate creationism. No-one's out there trying to find evidence that snakes could once talk, or that fish were created four days after light. Creationism goes: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic!" And even if this line of reasoning was correct, there would be no reason to infer any particular brand of magic, nor even that the magician should be of the order of being that we would classify as a god.This explains why some people have given up on creationism in general and advocated ID. ID might be defined as that subset of creationism which consists only of saying: "Evolution is wrong because [insert common creationist error here]. Therefore ... magic! Oh, or maybe space aliens if a judge is listening." (Making ID the only idea in the history of ever which has tried to gain intellectual respectability by invoking space aliens.)Even so, ID is still partial in a way that would be unwarranted by the IDists own (overt) premises: for example, when did you ever see an IDist use the phrase "designer or designers"? Arguably, then, their rhetoric still discriminates without scientific basis in favor of monotheists over polytheists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.