Talk:Learning creationism stimulates mental health, joy, and morals (Talk.Origins)
Re: "The above wording is a misrepresentation of what Morris is saying. Talk Origins has taken three separate paragraphs out of context, and then edited them down to one sentence, that implies something not intended by Morris."
Do you have the original? I have no idea whether t.o. misrepresented Morris or not, but if they did the best way to show it is to compare their summary with the original.
Re: "This is a total misrepresentation of creationists. The simple fact is that Creation Scientists do follow the evidence wherever it leads."
Creationists do not follow the evidence wherever it leads. The statement of faith of Answers in Genesis states that evidence leading to conclusions that contradict the Bible cannot exist. They decide in advance where the evidence will lead and refuse to accept the possibility of evidence leading elsewhere.
The ICR doesn't encourage following wherever the evidence leads either, since students signing up for their courses are required to accept that the evidence favours creationism before being presented with any of it.
Roy 20:29, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)
I would say that creationists follow the evidence wherever it leads as much as non-creationists do, if not more. Most scientists won't follow the evidence if it points to an intelligent designer, as they have ruled that out from the start. AiG's expectation that the evidence won't contradict the Bible is not a denial of following it wherever it leads; it's just a prediction of where it will lead. Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Yup, creationists do follow the evidence as much as most non-creationists do, which is not at all. As for scientists, any who might have ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer from the start are a definite minority. After all, most scientists do believe in some form of God. I suspect I would follow the evidence if it pointed to an intelligent designer - I follow the evidence when it points in wierd directions in other cases - but so far it doesn't. As for AiG, they are not making a prediction, since they leave absolutely no other options. Their statement is a denial of following the evidence - they have decided in advance that evidence leading to certain conclusions cannot exist, which rather guarantees that they won't follow it. Roy 16:52, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)
- <<they are not making a prediction, since they leave absolutely no other options>>
- That appears to me to be a non sequitur.
- <<As for scientists, any who might have ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer from the start are a definite minority.>>
- Are they really? Many scientists are Christians, so you would think that they have not ruled out a designer, but many of them do rule out God as something that they can consider scientifically.
- Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)
- Not a non sequitur - you described AiG's 'expectation' as a prediction; predictions can turn out wrong, but AiG's statement of faith does not include that option.
- Historically, intelligent design of animals was not ruled out a priori, nor was it ruled out a priori for either pulsar signals. Some physicists still consider it a possible cause of the values of universal constants. Roy 13:50, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
