What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

[Kbertsche]

What I would like to 'flesh out' is the justification of this highly flawed line of logical and reason that rejects the scientific knowledge, or selectively parse it to make square pegs fit in round holes. This is not problem of clinging to ancient paradigms is not exclusive to Christianity. It is becoming increasingly in vogue in Islam, and some sects of Hinduism also reject evolution like the Hari Krishna. It is an interesting paradox of the relationship of human belief and the reality of the world around us..

I think the explanation is simply "Morton's Demon". This occurs in almost any area of divergent opinions and high emotion. It is not restricted to Christians or to YEC.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, That's basically what I want to get at. I'd like ardent YECs/Genesis literalists, who want to reconcile that view with science, (a Biblical Scientific Creationist?) to give some specifics of what their view is, both scientifically and exegetically. And, if possible, I'd like to avoid weasel words like "historical vs. operational" science or the new-to-me term "provincial" science.

K54

I believe exegetically the role of the kataphatic view of nature Biblical scripture tends toward a more literal view as positively authored or directly inspired by God in part or whole. This leads to the conclusion that the beliefs expressed by the NT authors concerning the nature of OT scripture is the standard for understanding Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

[klaus54]

The hush is easily explained because this thing is much simpler than you think. Y or O EC’s are people who think that Genesis is God’s diary. There is no more analysis to their position than that although they will occasionally make strenuous efforts to convince you that there is.

Well, I'd like to see some of those strenuous efforts expressed here. Strenuous efforts to make their (unambiguous) Genesis exegesis harmonize with modern scientific knowledge, e.g. Deep Time expressed in the geologic record, vast distances varied history in the Cosmos, and in the genome.

K54

[firstfloor]

Fair enough, and fine with me. But only the non-YECs have responded, and if we agree to not harass them, they should have no problem. After all, it's supposed to be an issue near and dear to them, and one would think they'd fancy defending their theological, exegetical, and scientific positions in open forum.
So let's limit responses to YECs and (non-TE) OECs, and see what happens.
K54

The hush is easily explained because this thing is much simpler than you think. Y or O EC’s are people who think that Genesis is God’s diary. There is no more analysis to their position than that although they will occasionally make strenuous efforts to convince you that there is.

[klaus54]

This should be limited to YEC (and maybe certain OECs?) in accordance with the OP. This does not appear to be a general 'free for all" on Creation Science.

Fair enough, and fine with me. But only the non-YECs have responded, and if we agree to not harass them, they should have no problem. After all, it's supposed to be an issue near and dear to them, and one would think they'd fancy defending their theological, exegetical, and scientific positions in open forum.

So let's limit responses to YECs and (non-TE) OECs, and see what happens.

K54

[Jedidiah]

This should be limited to YEC (and maybe certain OECs?) in accordance with the OP. This does not appear to be a general 'free for all" on Creation Science.

[klaus54]

What I would like to 'flesh out' is the justification of this highly flawed line of logical and reason that rejects the scientific knowledge, or selectively parse it to make square pegs fit in round holes. This is not problem of clinging to ancient paradigms is not exclusive to Christianity. It is becoming increasingly in vogue in Islam, and some sects of Hinduism also reject evolution like the Hari Krishna. It is an interesting paradox of the relationship of human belief and the reality of the world around us..

Shuny, That's basically what I want to get at. I'd like ardent YECs/Genesis literalists, who want to reconcile that view with science, (a Biblical Scientific Creationist?) to give some specifics of what their view is, both scientifically and exegetically. And, if possible, I'd like to avoid weasel words like "historical vs. operational" science or the new-to-me term "provincial" science.

K54

[shunyadragon]

What I would like to 'flesh out' is the justification of this highly flawed line of logical and reason that rejects the scientific knowledge, or selectively parse it to make square pegs fit in round holes. This is not problem of clinging to ancient paradigms is not exclusive to Christianity. It is becoming increasingly in vogue in Islam, and some sects of Hinduism also reject evolution like the Hari Krishna. It is an interesting paradox of the relationship of human belief and the reality of the world around us..

[rwatts]

Jorge claims that the KJV is the best translation but is quick to abandon it for others he usually deems inferior if it doesn't support his YEC POV. For instance in Psalm 104 some versions (including the KJV) describe the waters as moving while in others it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. Jorge prefers the latter translation since he sees it as supporting YEC "Flood Geology" so at this point he readily tosses the KJV aside. This is a bit odd in that the psalm, long regarded as the Creation Psalm, is actually describing the creation here (although in very flowery, poetic language) and not the flood.

Jorge cherry picks what he cherry picks from.

[klaus54]

It's generally bad form to create a thread about somebody, or mention them in a thread, without giving them the courtesy of letting them know it's there. You can lead a horse to water, but not if you don't inform him in writing, first.

Geesh, sorry! Seems to be ok to reference Jorge, but he must have some special dispensation around here.

Back to the thread: I'd like SOMEONE to respond to SOMETHING. What's-his-face mentioned the nonsensical neologism "provincial science", and I would have liked to have him/her explain this notion in an "unprotected" thread.

No PM response from the-one-about-whom-we-must-not-speak yet.

Anyone up for discussing science and theology, or was this website just selling a bill of goods?

K54

[Cow Poke]

Don't how to do that yet. I'm too provincial.

K54

P.S. Just figured it out, and done diddly did it!

It's generally bad form to create a thread about somebody, or mention them in a thread, without giving them the courtesy of letting them know it's there. You can lead a horse to water, but not if you don't inform him in writing, first.

[klaus54]

Jorge claims that the KJV is the best translation but is quick to abandon it for others he usually deems inferior if it doesn't support his YEC POV. For instance in Psalm 104 some versions (including the KJV) describe the waters as moving while in others it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. Jorge prefers the latter translation since he sees it as supporting YEC "Flood Geology" so at this point he readily tosses the KJV aside. This is a bit odd in that the psalm, long regarded as the Creation Psalm, is actually describing the creation here (although in very flowery, poetic language) and not the flood.

Yes. And "firmament" (from the Vulgate "firmamentum") as a translation of "raqia" or "stereoma" should cause a problem since it supports an ANE cosmology rather than a strong concordist view a la YEC.

Did you like the photo of the "bumper sticker" I snapped yesterday?

K54

[rogue06]

Try Jorge.

Roy

Jorge claims that the KJV is the best translation but is quick to abandon it for others he usually deems inferior if it doesn't support his YEC POV. For instance in Psalm 104 some versions (including the KJV) describe the waters as moving while in others it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. Jorge prefers the latter translation since he sees it as supporting YEC "Flood Geology" so at this point he readily tosses the KJV aside. This is a bit odd in that the psalm, long regarded as the Creation Psalm, is actually describing the creation here (although in very flowery, poetic language) and not the flood.

[klaus54]

Have you PM'd him to invite him?

Don't how to do that yet. I'm too provincial.

K54

P.S. Just figured it out, and done diddly did it!

[Cow Poke]

"manalive883", why don't you step up to the plate?

Have you PM'd him to invite him?