Tell us about the dinosaurs

[rjh4 is back]

It is not, however, about "whether or not any creationism is properly scientific," I said. As you somewhat recognized, it is about Statler and his views, which consist of a highly specified young-earth creationism based more on Scripture than anything else—not creationism in a general sense. And his views are being roundly criticized—rightly so—for their irrationality, never mind their lack of scientific integrity and merit, and my point was to distance creationism generally from his distinct young-earth subset thereof. While people might consider his ilk as "**** fools" (e.g., Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Russell Humphreys, etc.), they do not necessarily think that of all creationists—for example, Ronald Fisher, Theodore Dobzhansky, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Randall Isaac, etc. (evolutionary creationism) or Russel Mixter, Fazale Rana, Jeffrey Zweerink, David Rogstad, etc. (progressive creationism) are not characterized with such invective.

Not all creationists are as scientifically incoherent or illiterate as the young-earth subset tends to be. Let Statler regale us with his account of dinosaurs (but don't hold your breath); however, as some of the names above should indicate (e.g., Dobzhansky), there is no shortage of creationists whose account of dinosaurs would probably mirror yours very closely, if not identically, and who are at least as passionate about science as you are and would not recognize your accusation that creationism is opposed to established science. While I understand the disparaging invective against young-earth creationists, those "radical evangelicals" who feel "that the findings of science ... [are] contrary to their religious dogma," I want to ensure that people are not broad-brushing all creationists generally; there are many creationists that rational people do not think are **** fools.

Arcanus,

I read stuff like this from you and shake my head. It sounds like you are saying or implying that you too think that a young earth creationist position is not rational. Furthermore, one could easily come away thinking that your position is that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational. Is it your position that a young earth creationist position based on Scripture is irrational? If so, why? I tried to pin you down in a short e-mail exchange with you a few months ago as to what your position is and the reasoning that led you to your position, but you failed to e-mail me an answer to my last questions. Knowing that you were planning to publish something on aristophrenium.com regarding the issue, I waited. Yesterday and today, I read what you had to say but what I found absent was any concrete position on the issue. Yes you did say that Scripture was ultimately authoritative (which, in itself, I think would qualify you as a "fool" in the eyes of most here (not me or probably Statler)) but you failed to take a position other than to say you lean toward old-earth creationism.

Is it your position that a position based more on Scripture than anything else is irrational? If so, why? I have a really hard time believing that your answer would be yes given your stated position at aristophrenium.com that you hold to Scripture as being ultimately authoritative. Furthermore, I wonder: given the fact that some of your colleagues over at aristophrenium.com clearly take a young earth creationist position, do you think such disparaging invecitve as one finds here is appropriately directed at such them? Or when you say you "understand" such invective being applied do you merely mean you understand the point of view of the person who provides such invective but you do not agree with it personally?

Arcanus, you seem to be really good at tearing down the arguments of others and do so on a regular basis. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it might be nice if you also opened up your actually position on some of these issues to the scrutiny of others instead of just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at everyone else's position.