From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:54:40 GMT



This post is a combination of a response to Drew on various subjects,
and musings about the ICR's "Newest Museum in San Diego".

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>So, in an effort to stop costing the net "hundreds, if not thousands,
>of dollars," I will withdraw from this debate.  I leave you with the
>thought that you are missing something and have a slightly too narrow
>perspective.

The only problem with this is that this seems to be the status-quo for
creationists these days, to post reams for awhile stirring up considerable
response, and then checking out before any kind of clarification has
taken place.   It begins to look as if the creationists not only have
difficulty making themselves clear, they aren't really all that interested
in it either.

It may be that if creationists were discriminating enough with regards
to making themselves perfectly clear, they wouldn't be creationists,
as they would be similarly discriminating about creationism itself.
It does begin to look like the "check-your-brains-at-the-door" syndrome.

Be that as it may, I still do hate to see creationists such as yourself
"take a powder" just when we may be getting close to identifying some
of the core areas where we disagree.  Creationists seem to be trying
to say something about problems they are having the scientific method,
but are never quite able to identify exactly what they are.

The recent review of the ICR's "Newest museum in San Diego" would seem
to support this, they are beginning to more specifically imply some
things about the basis of science itself with their admission that Adam
was created as an adult, trees were created fully grown, etc, which makes
creationism scientifically equivalent to Last Wednesdayism.

I wonder still, if cornered on the subject, what the ICR would actually
be willing to say about the comparison of the scientific validity of
creationism with Last Wednesdayism.  How, why, and to what extent
should science qualify apparent historical data with the philosophical
position that such data *may* have been created as part of a "fully
operational" universe?

Currently, I can't see how the ICRs position here could ever be anything
more than just plain anti-science, on a par with Flat-Earthism, and
that they have apparently given up the idea that creation is scientific
as the term is currently used by claiming there is no science that is
not religiously based, therefore redefining the term.

And why is it that most "true-believers" seem unable to differentiate
between Agnosticism and Atheism?  If you act "as if God doesn't exist"
that does not automatically mean that you believe God doesn't exist,
only that you are willing to suspend judgement on that matter in
a particular context.  Granted, "true-believers" generally are unwilling
to suspend judgement in that manner, but the also seem completely
incapable of understanding the point.

If future creationists are going to follow the pattern of Bales, Tun,
Loucks, et. al. and now Lawson, I kinda doubt we'll ever be able to agree
about what it is we disagree about.

It would seem in fact, that that is the point.  Creationists can't
really be up front about what the core disagreements are, even to
themselves perhaps, as it is too obviously intolerant.

For example, the question I'd like to see asked of the ICR at their "grand
opening" is something like this:

"The ICR has identified 3 religions which are compatible with true
creationism.  To what extent should parents who are *not* adherents
of these religions expect schools to respect their beliefs with regards to
the teaching of their children?"

jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes on the subject:
>Drew, and a vocal minority of his co-religionists, are
>_projecting_.  They are actively hostile to one area of science,
>and rather than examine the reasons and appropriateness of
>their hostility, they project; they claim that evolutionary
>science is hostile to religion.
>
>Absolutely typical of someone with a fixed belief that they're
>trying to avoid thinking about.

It seems that Christianity has a pretty dang poor history of
the questioning of authority, even when its strictly for
understandings sake.  It has been my experience that Christians
are not generally encouraged to ask the really hard questions, even
if they are not actively looking for "holes" but are simply believers
looking for a better und
Keith

P.S.  After reading the review of the ICR's museum (great article BTW,
though parts 2&3 never made it through) it's struck me as such a 
caricature, that I've been trying to think of an appropriate caricature
representation that would sum it up.  Unfortunately, anything I've come
up with seems like something less that a caricature when compared with
the thing itself.  How do you parody something that itself is such a
total self-parody?  I mean, even Flat-Earthism doesn't present such a
perfect comic-book representation of pseudoscientific propaganda.  It
would be truly funny if it didn't look so identical to the propaganda
Hitler produced about the Jew's responsibility for the worlds problems.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins