Tell us about the dinosaurs

[orogenicman]

Wrong again. The point is well-made about all creationism, since there is nothing rational about it, period.

This is going to be fun

.

Indeed.

Given that 'rational' is about conforming to the logical principles of validity and consistency and 'creationism' is about the universe being a creation of God, please explain how "there is nothing rational about [creationism], period."

It is not rational because the entire premise of creationism is "God did it", and whether you subscribe to old Earth creationism or young Earth creationism, the only evidence for either is a set of texts in a book of questionable provenance, and questionable authorship by a people who for the most part never ventured more that 20 miles from their place of birth during their entire lifetimes. It is equivalent to Werner's theory of neptunism, which was based entirely on what he saw in the rocks exposed in the province where he was born, and extrapolated to the entire planet. In order for creationists to make their claims work, they have to set aside 500 years of hard-won science. Sorry, there is nothing rational in such behavior, certainly not in the 21st century.

The thread absolutely IS about science.

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.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on science history, assuming you ever studied science history, that is. Creationism has been around for hundreds of years. It is not some new fangled theory that religious scientists of the modern era conjured up. The Middle ages saw the rise of a new paradigm, one that has been called "natural theology". It was the domain of those truths that could be found through the use of reason alone, without the Revelation of the Bible.
It was the dominant paradigm as recently as the mid-1800s.

From this "natural theology" arose the scientific revolution. The phrase "scientific revolution" was coined by French mathematician Jean Lerond d' Alembert in 1759 (who was decidedly anti-cleric). Reason was the key to a correct method (the scientific method), and the model of reason was mathematics. The scientific revolution moved the paradigm away from creationism, which, until the scientific revolution began, was the dominant thinking throughout much of Europe. Newton was a devout Christian. His writings are full of attempts to rationize his discoveries in the light of his Christian faith. Many other natural philosophers of the day were like minded. Nearly all of those religious rationalizations were swept away in the course of the next 200 years by others who saw the utter futility in such efforts. What was left was the God of the gaps, a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge. And the problem with the God of the gaps, of course, is that science keeps explaining away those gaps. And that is where creationsim is today, trying to shoehorn God into those gaps that science currently cannot explain. Now, whether you subscribe to a young Earth creationism or an old Earth creationism, you are still working on the premise that "God did it", and can be found "somwehere" in those gaps. And that simply is not rational, nor well reasoned. It is a circular argument. There is no more controversy for the vast majority of the world's scientists today, my friend. The scopes trial is over.

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 "fucking 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.

From Wikipedia:

In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, (Francis) Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

And I can almost guarantee you that none of his peer reviewed work involves invoking deities, Biologos, or whatever else he may be calling it these days.

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 fucking fools.

There certainly are religious people doing sound science. No one questions this. They do sound science because they know full well to leave their religious beliefs outside of the laboratory.

Sorry, diversion ain't gonna work. You don't have to take what I said on faith. All you have to do is get a real science education, and actually understand what they are teaching you. My post also fully addressed your response. Try addressing my point.

Except that both "ipse dixit" and "non-sequitur" were not diversions, but logical critiques; namely, it was this skeptic's way of saying, "Your response was rationally bankrupt, such that naked assertions and orphaned conclusions are without logical merit. Please try again." Incidentally, groundless personal attacks on my level of education also lack logical merit. You are not doing yourself any favours here.

Well, isn't that special - hock:

Not really. Godwin's law also states that invoking ole Adolf usually spells the end of a thread. Looks like it's still going to me.

Uh, no. That is a corollary to Godwin's law, not the law itself; the specific corollary here being, "If someone brings up Nazis [or Hitler] in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating." I noted that your comment proved Godwin's law, nothing more. You can explore its corollaries if you like or dig your heels in further about whatever point you're trying to make here, but it will have to be with someone else because it all goes beyond my point and I have no interest in it.

If you have no interest in it, why bring it up in the first place?

Revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's revelation over another. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted science. ... Science is empircal in nature, using inductive reasoning. Religion is not. Creationism is a sham promoted by people who believe The Flintstones is a documentary. [snip rest]

None of which has anything to do with what I said. The definition of faith I defended in that thread had nothing to do with converting someone, the nature of science and religion, or creationism. I find it curious that you have demonstrated such a propensity for red herrings in so brief an exchange.

It has everything to do with your response. You don't get to pick and choose your own taloured definitions. Faith IS a belief in something for which there is no proof. Otherwise, it isn't faith. That is the definiton. Deal with it.