Jersey Girl wrote:I'm hopefully going to give you the type of answer that you aren't going to get from Markk. Like ever.
No. I wouldn't agree. What you seem to be missing here is that while creationists might observe and accept scientific method, they simply compartmentalize their religious belief and keep it separate and apart from science.
Some mostly do. I agree.
Jersey Girl wrote:When you use the word creationist to label a group of people, I think you're oversimplying their belief in order to make a point for the sake of engaging in slam dunk argument and I tend to think that's an error.
I think you are using the term creationist to describe people who believe in a 6,000 year Earth and a literal wooden view of the Genesis account(s). There are two creation accounts in Genesis and if memory serves (I haven't looked it over in years) the two accounts are written to draw out different aspects of creation.
Jersey Girl wrote:Am I a creationist? I am in the sense that I believe that a supernatural force or entity created the Earth/Universe configuration? Yes, I do. Whether or not that supernatural force involves the singularity/Big Bang explanations or other and newer theories regarding natural occurrences and THAT is the supernatural force or there is an actual supernatural being involved I can't fully say.
What do I think about the overall Genesis account? I think the Genesis account of creation is ancient tribal lore. That is to say, I think it's an expression of the ancients understanding of how the Earth/Universe came into being just like I think the Flood account comes from the same understanding.
Do I think the Earth was created in 6 literal days? I have no idea. Do I think the ancients understood what thousands or millions or billions of years were? No. I tend to think they used the sun/moon day/night cycle they were familiar with to explain the timing of the creation of the Earth/Universe.
It wasn’t created in six days, six thousand years ago. To believe this one has to disregard almost every discipline in science. Not only must biology be wrong, so must geology. And chemistry. And physics. And astronomy. And paleontology. The humanities and arts are distained, too, because they can’t be correct with a 6,000 year-old earth. History and archeology have to be rewritten in ways that aren’t rational.
Science deniers such as Creationists often brush aside the science on climate change, vaccinations, sexuality and race. This has enormous public policy implications.
The selective reading of science that Creationists have to perform creates conditions whereby many think that any science can be read for any outcome one desires. Social Science research is one of the most frequent casualties. Psychology and sociology are repeatedly misinterpreted to fit an agenda. (See for example, views on gay rights or sexulaity.) It happens all the time on this board. A few months ago, in a discussion of gun violence, Markk dismissed the research correlating gun deaths with lax gun laws, saying that you can find a study that proves anything you want.
And yes, I know not all Evangelicals believe the same. One of my oldest and closest friends is an Evangelical who embraces science. By and large, however, Creationists do not.
Jersey Girl wrote:So, no. I don't think it's a waste of time to have a conversation about science with a creationist. While I myself leave room open to consider that the Genesis account may indeed be true, I don't spend time dwelling on it and it doesn't cancel out my respect for science. I can't tell you how the Universe was created but I can sure enough pick a certain medication (for example) that has a black box cancer warning on the label for a cancer side effect and explain to you why, if you are considering using that medication, it doesn't matter at all because I have studied the clinical trials and outcomes and understand why/how the cancer warning came about, and how the medication works and in what cases a person should consider using it.
Jersey Girl wrote:We all use and appreciate science and technology. I am certain that Markk uses both in his work and personal life like the rest of us do. If he believes in a literal 6 day creation and a 6k old Earth, that's because he separates his religious thinking from his thinking about science in daily life.
The Bible wasn't written to explain or teach science. Let's not forget that in our discussion.
I kind of disagree. That we appreciate the some of the results of science doesn’t mean we appreciate or understand the science, itself.
I agree that the Bible wasn't written to explain or teach science. It’s also not without error. I wish people would stop thinking that it might have been either.