Church Discipline

[margin overa]

Meanwhile, back to church discipline: everybody better get in line, straighten up and fly right, return to the fold, and return to your first love - pink slips and bright red car window "DISFELLOWSHIPPED" placards are ready to be deployed. For my judgement cometh, and that right soon.

[Lev]

...a multi-million year old age that the Anti-creationist is already expecting...

While Agricola did a thorough job of explaining the science, I'd only like to point out that one can both be a creationist (that is, someone who believes that God created the universe) and accept the scientific findings that the earth is billions (not just millions) of years old. Many people manage to hold both of these thoughts in their minds without conflict. I am one of them.

Lev

[Melanie]

I am also a creationist who does not subscribe to the young earth belief, Lev.

[agricola]

So am I, sort of. That is, I accept all the findings of physics, geology, chemistry and biology - but I still believe (the real 'believe' which means in the absence of evidence) there is a God who is 'Creator'. What that means may be somewhat fuzzy, but it is still there.

[KLP]

Actually repeated process producing repeated results is not proof of accuracy but proof of precision. If there is a bias built in due to assumption then repeating the process just gives precision, not accuracy.

[agricola]

Tell you what, klp. I'll drop it if you'll drop it. All the explaining in the world won't change a closed mind. Either of them!

[KLP]

My intention and self review is that my mind is only closed to the notion that any amount of explanation can justify ignoring possible bias as inconsequential in any system where none of it is entirely knowable. Therefore a choice (at some level of awareness) is always the determining factor on what one accepts or makes sense to that person. Demeaning or thinking less of a person because they make a different choice is without excuse IMO and particularly so when no consequence to that choice can be demonstrated. And so "I still for the life of me do not see what damage there is to believing young Earth" which is all I started off with and is my assertion.

[agricola]

But that's wrong - believing that there is no harm in believing falsehood. There is definite harm in believing falsehood when there is evidence - credible evidence - against it. Learning to think critically requires that one abandon what is false, and seek what is true. Insisting that people (young people in particular) abandon reason, simply because reason (seems to) contradict observable, testable fact or evidence, is causing harm.

People unable to think critically are easy prey for any superstition or deception that comes along.

As for bias - that should be sought out and examined, to see if it is in any way a justified bias. Again - critical thinking skills. One should be able to understand and examine ideas, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT 'PLEASANT' to see if they are or are not 'so'.

[margin overa]

I've never - NEVER - known a creationist who wanted creationism taught in schools as "an alternative view" to the TOE. Their real goal is to have it taught as fact and given equal credence - full stop. I find it a disingenuous approach.

Of course it matters. Whatever flaws in research or evidence interpreting occur with scientists of whatever kind, the beauty of the process is that it's an ongoing one, subject to correction and amplification. That's what happens all the time. The evidence for the process of evolution is certainly there, is certainly convincing, and to treat it as simply another viewpoint subject to creationist claims, is a disservice to the process and the teaching of the process.

We live in rather bizarre times. Thomas Jefferson thought the reliance on miracles, signs and wonders and supernatural thinking would fade away, and it seemed to be doing so - Robert Ingersoll in the late 19th century, was confident that the process would be widespread in the 20th, and he had reason to think so. However, here we are over 100 years after Ingersoll's death, and we're mired in absurd national debates that are like the silly, divisive CofC brotherhood debates over orphan homes and kitchens in church buildings. Fundamentalist thought has returned in force, not just in the Middle East, but in America, and pretending that reliance on literalist, supernaturalist thought and outright dismissal of rationalist education hasn't affected that rise is utterly false.

[KLP]

Yes, falsehoods should not be taught, obviously. But all I see is just defining a certain thinking as falsehood or "truthhood" but it is just subjective opinion...and yes, a million times yes, it is heavily layered with a lot of consensus, process, etc. But still, underlying it all is an unknown, assumption, unrepeatable, and unobserved and unobservable. "It" is essentially outside the reach of any natural process. You cannot show me ooze developing DNA nor can you show a big bang with variable inflation nor can you see the days of creation. Nor can the opposite be shown. It has to be believed and accepted at some point, not "known". Actual critical thinking allows one to accept this concept.

So call it falsehood or truth all you like but at no point is it every without the unknown and possibly widely inaccurate. But yes, each makes a certain "sense".

And yes, some folks don't like it for various reasons, but this is subjective and ultimately it is all a type of choice/religion/acceptance.

No one here is refuting scientific method or the acceptance of facts or observable information. Therefore what possible difference does the rest of it matter and to that point you continue to flail with warnings about possible doom to mankind due to lack of conformity on this thinking. Again, just like any other religion warning against some eventual comeuppance.