Quote:
Originally Posted by parallaxicality
I'm thinking of writing an article on creationism, but I realised as I contemplated it that I don't really have a clue how to respond to one.
|
Writing of that might be a nice article in itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by agingjb
The task of dialogue with creationists should be left to non-creationist believers (of whom there used to be many).
|
The "non-Creationsists" are still the majority, if you mean believers that believe in a Creator but accept mainstream science, including evolution. However, they typically consider themselves Creationists, in lieu of "non-creationists", but suffer the collateral damage from the rock throwers poorly aimed at YEC and other smaller anti-science sects.
Your statement nicely demonstrates that the definition for creationist, and creationism, is very muddy.
Tim Thompson's reference of Talk Origins helps delineate most of the categories, but there are others, including believers who see a literal interpretation of Genesis concordant with science. These are the ones that need help from scientists regarding the plausibility of their views. For example, could a proto-planet be described as appearing "without form and void" to a 15th century BC, or earlier, observer?
The plausibility of a belief is critical to its health. Wisdom and knowledge can sometimes grow to allow for the removal of fog for specific elements of faith. If believers find any of these elements residing in the Land of Silly, these elements will inevitably be rejected. The direct observation of the phases of Venus put Geocentrism in downtown Silly. It took little time for Church scholars, and subsequently the Church leaders, to reject Ptolemy's Geocentrism once this objective evidence was discovered. It was clear that the theologan's interpretations of only a few minor verses were erroneous. Yet, considering the amount of fog involved prior to Galileo, it is understandable. [They adopted the Tychonian model instead, but when more fog lifted that changed, too. ]
We all tend to believe what we want to believe. We won't change until, somehow, the fog lifts and we find ourselves in Sillyville, or if we are very thirsty for spiritual drink. In the latter case, the fog in Sillyville [can be] controlled by a lunatic(s) for horribly selfish reasons. These are the wolves in lamb's clothing.
Ideas such as the idea that we were all made last Thursday make for effective hyperbole to illustrate the power of subjective views, which are often immune from scrutiny from the objective realm, but most people will see these ideas as not plausible to their reality -- views from Sillyville.