As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
all believe in the same creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.

Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.

So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
the Wiki link.

Ron Okimoto

On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
> all believe in the same creator.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>
> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>
> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>
> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
> the Wiki link.

I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
protected from mischievous interference.

I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
the creationist's "kinds", do not change.

I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
And since a large party of Christians and others declare
(and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
type of "creationism" particularly.

I rarely see the origin or stars and planets described
as literal creation. Perhaps I'm overlooking it, or
perhaps religious speakers believe that such claims
are less likely to be believed when astrophysics
can say quite a lot about natural processes.
Claims are made that the universe itself, and its
natural principles which allow atoms, molecules, and
living things to be formed, are creations, in reality.

"Intelligent design" is a lie which was created by
teachers of special creation when special creation
"science" was proved to be a lie. Its claim is the same
as evolutionary creation, perhaps theistic evolution -
that whether or not the bible Book of Genesis is
actual truth, the development and the current state
of living things on Earth did not and could not
happen without God being involved in it. The lie
!is to say that scientific evidence supports the claim
that God did the creation and/or the evolution.

Often, if you scrape the paint on an intelligent
designist, special creation is exposed underneath.
But the purpose of ID isn't SC exclusively, it is
to create doubt of whatever kind that living things,
and particularly humans, weren't made by one or
more gods - doubt, therefore, that it is reasonable
to live without thinking about those gods. That's
also why EC accepts all scientific evidence about
the not-in-Genesis process of evolution, accepts
that the bible teaches nonsense about this, but
insists that God had to be involved anyway.

Alfred Russel Wallace is represented as finally
believing that life on the Earth was entirely
produced by natural processes except that, by
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace>

"natural selection could not account for mathematical,
artistic, or musical genius, metaphysical musings,
or wit and humour. He stated that something in
"the unseen universe of Spirit' had interceded at
least three times in history: the creation of life from
inorganic matter; the introduction of consciousness
in the higher animals; and the generation of the higher
mental faculties in humankind."

I don't know if he was completely certain of this, and
it is in the context of conversion to "Spiritualism".
A version of it which lets you go to the afterlife with
your pets, I infer. Spiritualism can be and not be
conventional theism. What I'm interested in here
is the apparent belief that life can be natural, and
evolution can be natural, but "consciousness", and
"human-ness", must be in, or must be created by, a
supernatural "universe of Spirit" - whose existence
again is proved by the existence of consciousness.
I'm not convinced by this, but I think it justifies me
in counting Wallace as an evolutionary creationist.
And this is evolution's John the Baptist we're looking at.
How can he be a "creationist" creationist?

On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>> all believe in the same creator.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>
>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>
>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>
>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>> the Wiki link.
>
> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
> protected from mischievous interference.
>
> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.

That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
already the belief that some god created the extant species using
biological evolution.

Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.

The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.

The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.

>
> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
> type of "creationism" particularly.

Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
create what we have today.

They are both still Biblical creationists.

Ron Okimoto
>
> I rarely see the origin or stars and planets described
> as literal creation. Perhaps I'm overlooking it, or
> perhaps religious speakers believe that such claims
> are less likely to be believed when astrophysics
> can say quite a lot about natural processes.
> Claims are made that the universe itself, and its
> natural principles which allow atoms, molecules, and
> living things to be formed, are creations, in reality.
>
> "Intelligent design" is a lie which was created by
> teachers of special creation when special creation
> "science" was proved to be a lie. Its claim is the same
> as evolutionary creation, perhaps theistic evolution -
> that whether or not the bible Book of Genesis is
> actual truth, the development and the current state
> of living things on Earth did not and could not
> happen without God being involved in it. The lie
> !is to say that scientific evidence supports the claim
> that God did the creation and/or the evolution.
>
> Often, if you scrape the paint on an intelligent
> designist, special creation is exposed underneath.
> But the purpose of ID isn't SC exclusively, it is
> to create doubt of whatever kind that living things,
> and particularly humans, weren't made by one or
> more gods - doubt, therefore, that it is reasonable
> to live without thinking about those gods. That's
> also why EC accepts all scientific evidence about
> the not-in-Genesis process of evolution, accepts
> that the bible teaches nonsense about this, but
> insists that God had to be involved anyway.
>
> Alfred Russel Wallace is represented as finally
> believing that life on the Earth was entirely
> produced by natural processes except that, by
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace>
>
> "natural selection could not account for mathematical,
> artistic, or musical genius, metaphysical musings,
> or wit and humour. He stated that something in
> "the unseen universe of Spirit' had interceded at
> least three times in history: the creation of life from
> inorganic matter; the introduction of consciousness
> in the higher animals; and the generation of the higher
> mental faculties in humankind."
>
> I don't know if he was completely certain of this, and
> it is in the context of conversion to "Spiritualism".
> A version of it which lets you go to the afterlife with
> your pets, I infer. Spiritualism can be and not be
> conventional theism. What I'm interested in here
> is the apparent belief that life can be natural, and
> evolution can be natural, but "consciousness", and
> "human-ness", must be in, or must be created by, a
> supernatural "universe of Spirit" - whose existence
> again is proved by the existence of consciousness.
> I'm not convinced by this, but I think it justifies me
> in counting Wallace as an evolutionary creationist.
> And this is evolution's John the Baptist we're looking at.
> How can he be a "creationist" creationist?
>

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
> >> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
> >> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
> >> all believe in the same creator.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
> >>
> >> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
> >> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
> >> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
> >> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
> >> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
> >> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
> >> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
> >> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
> >> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
> >> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
> >> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
> >>
> >> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
> >> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
> >> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
> >> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
> >> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
> >> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
> >> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
> >> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
> >> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
> >> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
> >> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
> >> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
> >> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
> >> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
> >> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
> >> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
> >> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
> >> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
> >> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
> >> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
> >>
> >> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
> >> the Wiki link.
> >
> > I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
> > can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
> > protected from mischievous interference.
> >
> > I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
> > word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
> > briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
> > in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
> > the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
> biological evolution.
>
> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>
> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>
> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
> >
> > I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
> > and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
> > from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
> > this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
> > test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
> > or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
> > are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
> > And since a large party of Christians and others declare
> > (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
> > exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
> > more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
> > type of "creationism" particularly.
> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
> create what we have today.
>
> They are both still Biblical creationists.

I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
specifically about God creating the things, by which
mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
are now, came to be.

I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
in the story was creating the living things that "are".
So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
Beings were brought into being that are identical
to current living specimens, practically speaking,
Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
creationism really means: creation, and then
no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.

The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
would bewilder public school students, and they
are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
matter to me, but it matters to the people who
are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.

A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
have done so, by defining the term too loosely.

On 1/15/2024 9:46 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>>>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>>>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>>>> all believe in the same creator.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>>>
>>>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>>>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>>>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>>>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>>>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>>>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>>>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>>>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>>>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>>>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>>>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>>>
>>>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>>>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>>>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>>>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>>>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>>>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>>>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>>>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>>>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>>>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>>>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>>>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>>>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>>>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>>>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>>>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>>>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>>>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>>>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>>>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>>>
>>>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>>>> the Wiki link.
>>>
>>> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
>>> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
>>> protected from mischievous interference.
>>>
>>> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
>>> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
>>> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
>>> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
>>> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
>> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
>> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
>> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
>> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
>> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
>> biological evolution.
>>
>> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
>> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
>> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
>> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
>> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
>> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
>> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>>
>> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
>> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
>> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>>
>> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
>>>
>>> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
>>> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
>>> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
>>> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
>>> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
>>> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
>>> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
>>> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
>>> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
>>> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
>>> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
>>> type of "creationism" particularly.
>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>> create what we have today.
>>
>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>
> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
> specifically about God creating the things, by which
> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
> are now, came to be.

Just go to Reason to believe. They are old earth biblical creationists,
and they claim to be IDiots. They are building a model of how their
intelligent designer created everything. They aren't Biblical
literalists because they add things that they claim the Bible just does
not mention, and they reinterpret some things where they claim the
literal interpretation is wrong. They claim that the Bible is true if
interpreted properly. It is just a fact that there are all kinds of
Biblical creationists. Behe and Denton believe in the same creator as
the Reason to Believe IDiots, and the ICR scientific YEC creationists.

https://reasons.org/about

Ron Okimoto
>
> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
> Beings were brought into being that are identical
> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
> creationism really means: creation, and then
> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>
> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
> would bewilder public school students, and they
> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>
> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
>

All scientific theories must be stated in their general form. So creationism must be stated without specifics as to who created, what, when, which are all just variables in creationism. Which means the creationist conceptual scheme is the scientific formulation of creationism.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Op zondag 7 januari 2024 om 22:32:33 UTC+1 schreef RonO:
> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
> all believe in the same creator.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>
> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>
> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>
> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
> the Wiki link.
>
> Ron Okimoto

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:12:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 1/15/2024 9:46 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
> >> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
> >> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
> >> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
> >> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
> >> create what we have today.
> >>
> >> They are both still Biblical creationists.
> >
> > I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
> > unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
> > specifically about God creating the things, by which
> > mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
> > are now, came to be.
> Just go to Reason to believe. They are old earth biblical creationists,
> and they claim to be IDiots. They are building a model of how their
> intelligent designer created everything. They aren't Biblical
> literalists because they add things that they claim the Bible just does
> not mention, and they reinterpret some things where they claim the
> literal interpretation is wrong. They claim that the Bible is true if
> interpreted properly. It is just a fact that there are all kinds of
> Biblical creationists. Behe and Denton believe in the same creator as
> the Reason to Believe IDiots, and the ICR scientific YEC creationists.
>
> https://reasons.org/about

What you seems to be describing actually is
them telling multiple inconsistent lies at the
same time. This is not "creationism". It is
'lying". And I think you said yourself, often,
that their real aim is to sell the Garden of
Eden story. Talk about "irreducible complexity"
is only a disguise for that. And this isn't to say
that they believe the Garden of Eden story
themselves. People as stupid as that would
not cause so much trouble.

On 1/18/2024 5:56 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:12:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/15/2024 9:46 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>>>> create what we have today.
>>>>
>>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>>>
>>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
>>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
>>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
>>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
>>> are now, came to be.
>> Just go to Reason to believe. They are old earth biblical creationists,
>> and they claim to be IDiots. They are building a model of how their
>> intelligent designer created everything. They aren't Biblical
>> literalists because they add things that they claim the Bible just does
>> not mention, and they reinterpret some things where they claim the
>> literal interpretation is wrong. They claim that the Bible is true if
>> interpreted properly. It is just a fact that there are all kinds of
>> Biblical creationists. Behe and Denton believe in the same creator as
>> the Reason to Believe IDiots, and the ICR scientific YEC creationists.
>>
>> https://reasons.org/about
>
> What you seems to be describing actually is
> them telling multiple inconsistent lies at the
> same time. This is not "creationism". It is
> 'lying". And I think you said yourself, often,
> that their real aim is to sell the Garden of
> Eden story. Talk about "irreducible complexity"
> is only a disguise for that. And this isn't to say
> that they believe the Garden of Eden story
> themselves. People as stupid as that would
> not cause so much trouble.
>

You are obviously wrong. The Reason to believe creationists believe in
the same Biblical creator as all the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
who have admitted that their designer is the Biblical designer. There
are just a lot of different types of creationists. As you already know
there are Hindu creationists, so they do not have to believe in the same
creator, they just have to believe in a creator to be a creationist.
Telling the truth is not required for being a creationist. You should
recall that Hovind admitted that he was lying, but when he was caught
telling the same lie, he just claimed that he was forgiven. There are
just many different types of creationists.

Ron Okimoto

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:47:40 AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> > On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
> > >> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
> > >> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
> > >> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
> > >> all believe in the same creator.
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
> > >>
> > >> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
> > >> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
> > >> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
> > >> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
> > >> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
> > >> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
> > >> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
> > >> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
> > >> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
> > >> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
> > >> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
> > >>
> > >> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
> > >> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
> > >> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
> > >> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
> > >> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
> > >> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
> > >> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
> > >> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
> > >> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
> > >> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
> > >> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
> > >> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
> > >> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
> > >> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
> > >> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
> > >> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
> > >> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
> > >> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
> > >> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
> > >> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
> > >>
> > >> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
> > >> the Wiki link.
> > >
> > > I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
> > > can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
> > > protected from mischievous interference.
> > >
> > > I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
> > > word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
> > > briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
> > > in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
> > > the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
> > That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
> > teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
> > passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
> > because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
> > already the belief that some god created the extant species using
> > biological evolution.
> >
> > Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
> > theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
> > flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
> > or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
> > geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
> > creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
> > believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
> >
> > The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
> > examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
> > the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
> >
> > The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
> > >
> > > I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
> > > and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
> > > from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
> > > this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
> > > test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
> > > or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
> > > are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
> > > And since a large party of Christians and others declare
> > > (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
> > > exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
> > > more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
> > > type of "creationism" particularly.
> > Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
> > and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
> > Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
> > that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
> > designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
> > create what we have today.
> >
> > They are both still Biblical creationists.
> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
> specifically about God creating the things, by which
> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
> are now, came to be.
>
> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
> Beings were brought into being that are identical
> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
> creationism really means: creation, and then
> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>
> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
> would bewilder public school students, and they
> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>
> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:

Technical accuracy: 10/10
Usefulness: 0/10

On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>
> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>
> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> Usefulness: 0/10
>

I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".

Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
(and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.

My preferred definition is "religiously motivated rejection of
substantial portions of the scientific consensus, especially as related
to biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof".

--
alias Ernest Major

On Friday 19 January 2024 at 02:17:44 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 5:56 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 12:12:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >> On 1/15/2024 9:46 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
> >>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
> >>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
> >>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
> >>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
> >>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
> >>>> create what we have today.
> >>>>
> >>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
> >>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
> >>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
> >>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
> >>> are now, came to be.
> >> Just go to Reason to believe. They are old earth biblical creationists,
> >> and they claim to be IDiots. They are building a model of how their
> >> intelligent designer created everything. They aren't Biblical
> >> literalists because they add things that they claim the Bible just does
> >> not mention, and they reinterpret some things where they claim the
> >> literal interpretation is wrong. They claim that the Bible is true if
> >> interpreted properly. It is just a fact that there are all kinds of
> >> Biblical creationists. Behe and Denton believe in the same creator as
> >> the Reason to Believe IDiots, and the ICR scientific YEC creationists.
> >>
> >> https://reasons.org/about
> >
> > What you seems to be describing actually is
> > them telling multiple inconsistent lies at the
> > same time. This is not "creationism". It is
> > 'lying". And I think you said yourself, often,
> > that their real aim is to sell the Garden of
> > Eden story. Talk about "irreducible complexity"
> > is only a disguise for that. And this isn't to say
> > that they believe the Garden of Eden story
> > themselves. People as stupid as that would
> > not cause so much trouble.
> >
> You are obviously wrong. The Reason to believe creationists believe in
> the same Biblical creator as all the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
> who have admitted that their designer is the Biblical designer. There
> are just a lot of different types of creationists. As you already know
> there are Hindu creationists, so they do not have to believe in the same
> creator, they just have to believe in a creator to be a creationist.
> Telling the truth is not required for being a creationist. You should
> recall that Hovind admitted that he was lying, but when he was caught
> telling the same lie, he just claimed that he was forgiven. There are
> just many different types of creationists.

My point is that actual creationism is a claim that
"things were created and there is no evolution".
That's still the prime anti-evolution claim, in biology
anyway, and it should be the prime topic in talk.origins.
I don't think that religious believers are really
satisfied with a less definite claim against
evolution which isn't in their foundational books.
They do bring other arguments, however.
But the one that they care about is an act of
creation of each species.

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:47:40 AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>>>>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>>>>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>>>>> all believe in the same creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>>>>
>>>>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>>>>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>>>>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>>>>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>>>>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>>>>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>>>>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>>>>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>>>>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>>>>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>>>>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>>>>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>>>>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>>>>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>>>>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>>>>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>>>>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>>>>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>>>>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>>>>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>>>>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>>>>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>>>>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>>>>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>>>>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>>>>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>>>>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>>>>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>>>>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>>>>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>>>>> the Wiki link.
>>>>
>>>> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
>>>> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
>>>> protected from mischievous interference.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
>>>> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
>>>> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
>>>> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
>>>> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
>>> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
>>> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
>>> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
>>> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
>>> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
>>> biological evolution.
>>>
>>> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
>>> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
>>> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
>>> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
>>> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
>>> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
>>> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>>>
>>> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
>>> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
>>> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>>>
>>> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
>>>>
>>>> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
>>>> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
>>>> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
>>>> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
>>>> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
>>>> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
>>>> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
>>>> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
>>>> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
>>>> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
>>>> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
>>>> type of "creationism" particularly.
>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>>> create what we have today.
>>>
>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
>> are now, came to be.
>>
>> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
>> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
>> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
>> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
>> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
>> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
>> Beings were brought into being that are identical
>> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
>> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
>> creationism really means: creation, and then
>> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>>
>> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
>> would bewilder public school students, and they
>> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
>> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
>> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
>> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>>
>> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
>> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
>> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
>
> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>
> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> Usefulness: 0/10
>
Ten (10) out of 10 for accuracy, I'll accept that!
Zero (0) out of 10 useful _for_ evolutionary theory.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:18:32 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:

[...]

>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>
>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>
>Ten (10) out of 10 for accuracy, I'll accept that!
>Zero (0) out of 10 useful _for_ evolutionary theory.

You get 0/10 for your understanding of evolution and -10/10 for that
not stopping you from opening your mouth without a simple check to see
if what you are saying is right. A basic search would have given you
stuff like this:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230905-how-darwinism-is-changing-medicine

There's plenty more like it if you get off your arse, open your mind
and do some actual reading.

On 1/19/2024 11:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:47:40 AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>>>>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>>>>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>>>>> all believe in the same creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>>>>
>>>>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>>>>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>>>>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>>>>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>>>>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>>>>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>>>>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>>>>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>>>>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>>>>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>>>>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>>>>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>>>>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>>>>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>>>>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>>>>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>>>>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>>>>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>>>>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>>>>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>>>>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>>>>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>>>>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>>>>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>>>>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>>>>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>>>>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>>>>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>>>>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>>>>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>>>>> the Wiki link.
>>>>
>>>> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
>>>> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
>>>> protected from mischievous interference.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
>>>> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
>>>> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
>>>> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
>>>> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
>>> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
>>> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
>>> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
>>> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
>>> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
>>> biological evolution.
>>>
>>> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
>>> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
>>> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
>>> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
>>> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
>>> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
>>> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>>>
>>> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
>>> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
>>> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>>>
>>> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
>>>>
>>>> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
>>>> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
>>>> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
>>>> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
>>>> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
>>>> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
>>>> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
>>>> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
>>>> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
>>>> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
>>>> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
>>>> type of "creationism" particularly.
>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>>> create what we have today.
>>>
>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
>> are now, came to be.
>>
>> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
>> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
>> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
>> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
>> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
>> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
>> Beings were brought into being that are identical
>> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
>> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
>> creationism really means: creation, and then
>> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>>
>> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
>> would bewilder public school students, and they
>> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
>> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
>> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
>> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>>
>> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
>> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
>> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
>
> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>
> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> Usefulness: 0/10
>

The definition is the most useful for the current creationist political
stupidity because the ID perps have been trying to create their "Big
Tent" that they claim includes all types of Biblical creationists.
Trying to claim that ID perps are not creationists is just stupid.

The whole reason for there to be ID perps and the rubes that want to
believe them is because they are Biblical creationists. It is what
nearly all of them have in common. There are some Muslim IDiots, but
they believe in the same creator as the ID perps. Kalkidas was only
pretending to be a Hindu IDiot, but there could be some real ones out
there because Hindus are creationists. Some of them have only one
creator. We've had Hindu creationists that were anti-evolution posting
on TO from time to time. Nearly all of them didn't claim to be IDiots,
they just supported their creationist beliefs.

On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>
>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>
>
> I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
>
> Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
> (and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
> accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.

It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
creationist. What do you think that this is about? I am the one that
is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
is that they all believe in a creator. How can anyone be so wrong about
what this issue is about?

It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because they
are creationists of one sort or another. It is their common trait.
Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted
that their designer is the Biblical creator.

Ron Okimoto

>
> My preferred definition is "religiously motivated rejection of
> substantial portions of the scientific consensus, especially as related
> to biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof".
>

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:46:58 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/19/2024 11:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:47:40?AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>>>>>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>>>>>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>>>>>> all believe in the same creator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>>>>>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>>>>>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>>>>>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>>>>>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>>>>>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>>>>>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>>>>>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>>>>>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>>>>>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>>>>>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>>>>>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>>>>>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>>>>>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>>>>>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>>>>>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>>>>>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>>>>>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>>>>>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>>>>>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>>>>>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>>>>>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>>>>>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>>>>>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>>>>>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>>>>>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>>>>>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>>>>>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>>>>>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>>>>>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>>>>>> the Wiki link.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
>>>>> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
>>>>> protected from mischievous interference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
>>>>> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
>>>>> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
>>>>> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
>>>>> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
>>>> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
>>>> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
>>>> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
>>>> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
>>>> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
>>>> biological evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
>>>> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
>>>> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
>>>> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
>>>> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
>>>> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
>>>> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>>>>
>>>> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
>>>> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
>>>> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>>>>
>>>> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
>>>>>
>>>>> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
>>>>> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
>>>>> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
>>>>> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
>>>>> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
>>>>> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
>>>>> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
>>>>> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
>>>>> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
>>>>> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
>>>>> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
>>>>> type of "creationism" particularly.
>>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>>>> create what we have today.
>>>>
>>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
>>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
>>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
>>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
>>> are now, came to be.
>>>
>>> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
>>> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
>>> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
>>> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
>>> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
>>> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
>>> Beings were brought into being that are identical
>>> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
>>> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
>>> creationism really means: creation, and then
>>> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>>>
>>> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
>>> would bewilder public school students, and they
>>> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
>>> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
>>> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
>>> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>>>
>>> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
>>> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
>>> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
>>
>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>
>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>
>
>The definition is the most useful for the current creationist political
>stupidity because the ID perps have been trying to create their "Big
>Tent" that they claim includes all types of Biblical creationists.
>Trying to claim that ID perps are not creationists is just stupid.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:17:44 PM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:

> I find nothing *useful* whatsoever in a definition that lumps Ken
> Miller, Francis Collins and me in the same category as Ken Ham. It
> obviously appeals to you but I doubt whether many others will find it
> useful either.

It is very useful to Ron. His definition has an entirely plausible rationale and yet it differs from the definition that most people here use. That maximizes the number of people Ron can say are wrong. Very useful.

On 20/01/2024 14:54, RonO wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>>
>>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>>
>>
>> I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
>>
>> Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of
>> creationism (and that the true definition is not the one in widest
>> usage). An accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation
>> in usage.
>
> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
> creationist.  What do you think that this is about?  I am the one that
> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
> is that they all believe in a creator.  How can anyone be so wrong about
> what this issue is about?

I don't think anybody here claims that there is only one type of
creationist. The dispute is over which range of positions fall under the
rubric of creationism. There are narrower and broader conceptions of the
term. You happen to adopt a particularly broad definition (though it is
within the range of attested usage). Your definition is not incorrect,
but your insistence that other definitions are incorrect is incorrect.

Most people here think that your definition is not useful in the context
of talk.origins.

The sense of your assertion "what matters is that they all believe in a
creator" is ambiguous. If you are asserting that this is the sole
acceptable, defining criterion this is contradicted by the existence of
other, narrower, usages of the term. If you are asserting that their
belief in a creator is what is important, then I expect that many people
here disagree - the rejection of science, attacks on education, the
negative impact on the economy, the hostility to human rights, the wish
to install a fascist regime; all of these are more important issues than
whether they believe in a creator.
>
> It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because they
> are creationists of one sort or another.  It is their common trait.
> Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted
> that their designer is the Biblical creator.

By your definition you and Martin Harran are creationists. But you are
not IDiots. So, clearly, belief in a creator is not sufficient to
account for the existence of IDiots. There must be other necessary
factors involved.

And there are few people here who dispute that Intelligent Design
advocates are creationists. You might note that they are covered by the
definition I gave below.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>
>> My preferred definition is "religiously motivated rejection of
>> substantial portions of the scientific consensus, especially as
>> related to biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof".
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 14:57:44 UTC, RonO wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
> >>
> >> Technical accuracy: 10/10
> >> Usefulness: 0/10
> >>
> >
> > I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
> >
> > Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
> > (and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
> > accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.
> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
> creationist. What do you think that this is about? I am the one that
> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
> is that they all believe in a creator. How can anyone be so wrong about
> what this issue is about?

No; "creationist" does not mean "There was a creator"
to most people, or to
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationist>

It means "There was no evolution" - or, much more
loosely, that natural evolution is a scientifically
unsatisfactory explanation of how things are -
but while that's wrong, I want to reserve "creationism"
for the particular error of believing that distinct
animal species, or distinct plants, were created
separately, and don't have a common ancestor
and common descent. That God created biological
"kinds" that are distinct and that have remained and
will remain distinct.

This usually includes making humans separate from
other apes, and I considered offering that as the acid
test of a creationist. But I would not want to exclude
from "creationist" someone who recognises humans
as apes - or someone who does not talk about human
origin at all - but who is creationist about other species.
And of course I include creationists who teach that
Noah's ark carried a limited number of species, for
reason of space, which evolved diversely afterwards.
(The bible says that God brought the animals to the
ark's location, so they are ones that God chose for the
purpose. And apparently for a lot of sacrificing after
the boat found land.)

This_ excludes_ as "creationist" people who assert
that God created one primitive life, some type of
pond scum, and then let evolution proceed, or that
God created the original life and then made it evolve
as he wanted.

And it excludes Alfred Russel Wallace, who believed
that humans are descended from apes, although as
an act of spirit intervention.

And of course there's the separate sense of religious
doctrine that each single human soul is separately
created by God, which I'm told is a standard
Roman Catholic belief. After which, we are punished
by God for being human.

A "creationism" in other scientific fields, such as geology
and astrophysics and cosmology, is harder to distinguish.
I think it must have an ironically separate meaning there.
I think that very few people will dispute that stuff is buried
in rock underground on Earth that was once on the surface,
and that other stuff on the surface used to be on the inside -
not once they know about volcanoes. Thus, there is evolution.
You could believe, as the bible says, that God created each
celestial object separately - sun, moon, planet, star.
And it's hard to examine scientifically that the beginning
of the universe was willed into existence by God.
If this is a "creationism" then apparently it ignores
the fact of the universe undergoing evolution, change,
between its beginning and how things are now.

> It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because they
> are creationists of one sort or another. It is their common trait.
> Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted
> that their designer is the Biblical creator.

IDists are liars. "Intelligent design" is a set of lies
that attack evolution. IDists whose engagement
is more than just having been told that "life is
intelligently designed" do not believe in ID, I am
confident. It's most likely that apart from ID,
they express young-world creationism, but they
may not really believe in that, too. They may only
do it to be paid, or to be welcome in church.

An evolution that is controlled by God is doctrinally
consistent with ID. This does not matter, because
ID is not a doctrine that matters. ID is a fake position
with other teaching or belief hidden behind it.

On 1/21/2024 7:35 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 14:54, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>>>
>>>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>>>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
>>>
>>> Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of
>>> creationism (and that the true definition is not the one in widest
>>> usage). An accurate definition of creationism recognises the
>>> variation in usage.
>>
>> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
>> creationist.  What do you think that this is about?  I am the one that
>> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
>> is that they all believe in a creator.  How can anyone be so wrong
>> about what this issue is about?
>
> I don't think anybody here claims that there is only one type of
> creationist. The dispute is over which range of positions fall under the
> rubric of creationism. There are narrower and broader conceptions of the
> term. You happen to adopt a particularly broad definition (though it is
> within the range of attested usage). Your definition is not incorrect,
> but your insistence that other definitions are incorrect is incorrect.

What do you think that you are claiming when you claim that the ID perps
are not creationists? When you limit creationiist to YEC fundies TO is
the one limiting the definition of creationist. Someone tried to expand
the TO definition so that it would include ID perps, but they could not
do it. It is just a fact that the ID perps are creationists, not only
that, but nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical
creationists. They are ID perps because they are Biblical creationist,
but they call it intelligent design in order to lie about the issue.

>
> Most people here think that your definition is not useful in the context
> of talk.origins.

It is the only definition that matters and is relevant to TO in terms of
the ID scam. The ID scam has their "Big Tent" claims were all types of
creationists are welcome. Most of the ID perps are old earth
creationists of one type or another, but most of the rubes that support
the effort have always been the same TO fundy type of YEC Biblical
creationist.

Most of the ID perps are not IDiots because they support YEC fundies.
They are IDiots because they believe in the same creator, but have
different beliefs about what that creator created.

>
> The sense of your assertion "what matters is that they all believe in a
> creator" is ambiguous. If you are asserting that this is the sole
> acceptable, defining criterion this is contradicted by the existence of
> other, narrower, usages of the term. If you are asserting that their
> belief in a creator is what is important, then I expect that many people
> here disagree - the rejection of science, attacks on education, the
> negative impact on the economy, the hostility to human rights, the wish
> to install a fascist regime; all of these are more important issues than
> whether they believe in a creator.

It is direct and true. What is ambiguous about claiming that they all
believe in the same Biblical creator? Even the Muslim IDiots have the
same creator. There is no ambiguity about that.

>>
>> It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because
>> they are creationists of one sort or another.  It is their common
>> trait. Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have
>> admitted that their designer is the Biblical creator.
>
> By your definition you and Martin Harran are creationists. But you are
> not IDiots. So, clearly, belief in a creator is not sufficient to
> account for the existence of IDiots. There must be other necessary
> factors involved.

IDiots are obviously creationists with different political and religious
views. What do you not get? YEC fundies are creationists with
different political goals and religious beliefs. TO has always known
that there were different types of creationists. Ever since I started
reading TO back in 1993 they were already dealing with YEC, OEC and even
various theistic evolutionist creationists. Denton and Behe are
thesitic evolutionist creationists, but Denton had deistic views and
claims that it all may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe
is a tweeker and thinks that his creator was involved in guiding the
evolution of life on this planet. These types of creationists already
existed long ago on TO. Harran and I are both some type of thesitic
evolutionist, but I understand how dishonest and stupid the ID perp's
political scam is. There is no creation science to teach in the public
schools. Everyone should know that after the failure of scientific
creationism. The ID perps tried a name change, but it failed in Federal
court, and Phillip Johnson finally admitted that there was no ID science
to teach.

>
> And there are few people here who dispute that Intelligent Design
> advocates are creationists. You might note that they are covered by the
> definition I gave below.

What do you think that the squabble about the definition of creationism
is due to? Where have you been?

Denton doesn't fit that definition, and neither does Behe. Behe doesn't
reject the scientific consensus, he just claims that his creator fits in
there somewhere. Denton accept everything, he has claimed that his
creator may have gotten the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all
unfolded into what we have today. The only thing that they both deny is
that we know everything at this time, and every scientist worth calling
a scientist would agree with them.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>
>>> My preferred definition is "religiously motivated rejection of
>>> substantial portions of the scientific consensus, especially as
>>> related to biology, geology and cosmology, or the promotion thereof".
>>>
>>
>

On 1/21/2024 9:10 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 14:57:44 UTC, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 12:14 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 19/01/2024 17:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>>>
>>>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>>>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest that "technical accuracy" be replaced by "precision".
>>>
>>> Ron's fault is to insist that there's one true definition of creationism
>>> (and that the true definition is not the one in widest usage). An
>>> accurate definition of creationism recognises the variation in usage.
>> It is the TO fault to claim that there is only one true definition of
>> creationist. What do you think that this is about? I am the one that
>> is claiming that there are all kinds of creationists, and what matters
>> is that they all believe in a creator. How can anyone be so wrong about
>> what this issue is about?
>
> No; "creationist" does not mean "There was a creator"
> to most people, or to
> <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationist>
>
> It means "There was no evolution" - or, much more
> loosely, that natural evolution is a scientifically
> unsatisfactory explanation of how things are -
> but while that's wrong, I want to reserve "creationism"
> for the particular error of believing that distinct
> animal species, or distinct plants, were created
> separately, and don't have a common ancestor
> and common descent. That God created biological
> "kinds" that are distinct and that have remained and
> will remain distinct.

There are many variations of the definition due to what the issues have
been, but before there were YEC anti-evolution scientific creationists,
a creationist was just someone that believed in a creator. You can't
get stuck in a rut with definitions that are no longer accurate in terms
of the anti-evolution creationism.

There have been old earth and young earth creationists for centuries.
After biological evolution became an option there were some old earth
creationists that accepted biological evolution to one degree or another.

The Reason to believe IDiots are old earth anti-evolutionists, and so
are most of the ID perps, but not all the ID perps are anti-evolution
creationists, but they are still ID perps because they believe in the
same creator as the other ID perps.

After Darwin flat earth creationism came back as a fundy belief.

You should just believe the Wiki on this one. Hindu and Muslim are
creationists. Hindu's just believe in another creator or creators.
Muslims believe in the same creator as the ID perps and the
anti-evolution scientific creationists.

Ron Okimoto

>
> This usually includes making humans separate from
> other apes, and I considered offering that as the acid
> test of a creationist. But I would not want to exclude
> from "creationist" someone who recognises humans
> as apes - or someone who does not talk about human
> origin at all - but who is creationist about other species.
> And of course I include creationists who teach that
> Noah's ark carried a limited number of species, for
> reason of space, which evolved diversely afterwards.
> (The bible says that God brought the animals to the
> ark's location, so they are ones that God chose for the
> purpose. And apparently for a lot of sacrificing after
> the boat found land.)
>
> This_ excludes_ as "creationist" people who assert
> that God created one primitive life, some type of
> pond scum, and then let evolution proceed, or that
> God created the original life and then made it evolve
> as he wanted.
>
> And it excludes Alfred Russel Wallace, who believed
> that humans are descended from apes, although as
> an act of spirit intervention.
>
> And of course there's the separate sense of religious
> doctrine that each single human soul is separately
> created by God, which I'm told is a standard
> Roman Catholic belief. After which, we are punished
> by God for being human.
>
> A "creationism" in other scientific fields, such as geology
> and astrophysics and cosmology, is harder to distinguish.
> I think it must have an ironically separate meaning there.
> I think that very few people will dispute that stuff is buried
> in rock underground on Earth that was once on the surface,
> and that other stuff on the surface used to be on the inside -
> not once they know about volcanoes. Thus, there is evolution.
> You could believe, as the bible says, that God created each
> celestial object separately - sun, moon, planet, star.
> And it's hard to examine scientifically that the beginning
> of the universe was willed into existence by God.
> If this is a "creationism" then apparently it ignores
> the fact of the universe undergoing evolution, change,
> between its beginning and how things are now.
>
>> It is just a fact that the main reason why IDiots exist is because they
>> are creationists of one sort or another. It is their common trait.
>> Pretty much all of the ID perps at the Discovery Institute have admitted
>> that their designer is the Biblical creator.
>
> IDists are liars. "Intelligent design" is a set of lies
> that attack evolution. IDists whose engagement
> is more than just having been told that "life is
> intelligently designed" do not believe in ID, I am
> confident. It's most likely that apart from ID,
> they express young-world creationism, but they
> may not really believe in that, too. They may only
> do it to be paid, or to be welcome in church.
>
> An evolution that is controlled by God is doctrinally
> consistent with ID. This does not matter, because
> ID is not a doctrine that matters. ID is a fake position
> with other teaching or belief hidden behind it.
>

On 1/20/2024 12:16 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:46:58 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2024 11:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:47:40?AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 02:37:40 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 1/14/2024 10:05 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday 7 January 2024 at 21:32:33 UTC, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>> As sad as it may be, a lot of TO regulars need to rethink their beliefs.
>>>>>>> A lot of you want to deny that the ID perps are creationists when
>>>>>>> nearly all of them have admitted to being Biblical creattionists. They
>>>>>>> all believe in the same creator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are all kinds of creationists. That has been known since I
>>>>>>> started reading TO back in 1993. For some reason some TO regulars want
>>>>>>> to cling to a definition that only includes the YEC scientific type
>>>>>>> creationists. The scientific creationists gave creationists a bad name
>>>>>>> because they weren't just Biblical creationists, but they were science
>>>>>>> deniers. The ID Perps continued the science denial, but changed the
>>>>>>> name of what they were supporting. Everyone should know that the ID
>>>>>>> perps were creationists because Nelson and Kenyon were YEC type
>>>>>>> scientific creationists. Kenyon wrote up some of the legal briefs for
>>>>>>> the scientific creationist Supreme Court case. He didn't stop being a
>>>>>>> creationists just because he joined up with the other ID perp creationists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before the scientific creationism ploy started in the 1960's there
>>>>>>> probably had been theistic evolutionist Biblical creationists for around
>>>>>>> a century. Not all Christians rejected biological evolution. When the
>>>>>>> anti-evolution laws were being passed in the 1920's theistic evolution
>>>>>>> had been accepted by multiple Christian sects in the US and they were
>>>>>>> against those laws. There were already old earth and young earth
>>>>>>> creationist factions in the Methodist church in the 19th century, and
>>>>>>> they decided to coexist because inaccurate Biblical accounts of nature
>>>>>>> just didn't matter to what was considered to be the important tenets of
>>>>>>> the faith. My take on why they decided to pass on the issue is because
>>>>>>> issues like geocentrism had died, and there was no use arguing about how
>>>>>>> old the earth was based on Biblical accounts. The Greeks had started
>>>>>>> estimating the circumference of the earth a couple centuries before
>>>>>>> Christ was born, and it didn't make sense to go along with
>>>>>>> fundamentalist thinking that was trying to bring back flat earth
>>>>>>> creationism. The Bible had been written by people that had adopted the
>>>>>>> flat-earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been
>>>>>>> civilized for a longer period of time. That is the reason why the Bible
>>>>>>> is a flat earth geocentric text. If the Bible had been written today it
>>>>>>> would be quite different, and we would still get somethings wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you are in denial of what creationism actually is, you should read
>>>>>>> the Wiki link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've glanced at it today. But let's remember that Wikipedia
>>>>>> can be edited by anybody, although many articles are
>>>>>> protected from mischievous interference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's appropriate and important to reserve the unqualified
>>>>>> word "creationism" in biology to refer to "special creationism";
>>>>>> briefly, that God, or someone like him, created each species
>>>>>> in essentially its current form. That species, or rather,
>>>>>> the creationist's "kinds", do not change.
>>>>> That was only one form of creationism that the scientific YEC wanted to
>>>>> teach in the public schools. When the anti-evolution laws were being
>>>>> passed in the 1920's there were Biblical creationists against those laws
>>>>> because they didn't have an issue with biological evolution. There was
>>>>> already the belief that some god created the extant species using
>>>>> biological evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before TO adopted scientific creationist type YEC there were already
>>>>> theistic evolutionist creationists, old earth creationists, and even
>>>>> flat-earth creationists that could be young or old earth or geocentric
>>>>> or heliocentric. Pagano wasn't flat-earth, but he was an old earth
>>>>> geocentric creationist, and an IDiot. These are just the Biblical
>>>>> creationists. A definition of creationist was and still is someone that
>>>>> believes in a creator god. Hindu are creationists as noted in the Wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Wiki makes the same claims, and you can look up the history and
>>>>> examples yourself. These types of creationists had all existed before
>>>>> the YEC scientific creationist made YEC an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ID perps are Biblical creationists, and always have been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I set these conditions, because "evolutionary creation/ism"
>>>>>> and "theistic evolution" can be completely indistinguishable
>>>>>> from natural evolution in terms of observable science;
>>>>>> this is official, and therefore it is impossible for a scientific
>>>>>> test to demonstrate an absence of God's secret intervention
>>>>>> or his mysterious power of predestination. So if EC and TE
>>>>>> are "creationism" then it is impossible to criticise "creationism".
>>>>>> And since a large party of Christians and others declare
>>>>>> (and may or may not sincerely believe) that cows for instance
>>>>>> exist because God built cows from the ground up as the bible
>>>>>> more or less says, it isn't unfair to concentrate on that
>>>>>> type of "creationism" particularly.
>>>>> Behe and Denton are theistic evolutionists. Denton has Deistic leanings
>>>>> and his designer might have just gotten the ball rolling with the Big
>>>>> Bang and it may have unfolded into what we have today, but Behe thinks
>>>>> that his designer has been helping things along to the extent that his
>>>>> designer has been tweeking lifeforms for billions of years in order to
>>>>> create what we have today.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are both still Biblical creationists.
>>>> I don't think one can be a real "biblical creationist"
>>>> unless one is asserting that the story in the bible
>>>> specifically about God creating the things, by which
>>>> mainly I mean animals, is how the things, as they
>>>> are now, came to be.
>>>>
>>>> I've been saying that the real bible text doesn't
>>>> have tenses, but the popular although unintelligible
>>>> English "Authorised Version" does have, and there
>>>> it's clear, in my opinion, that what God "was" doing
>>>> in the story was creating the living things that "are".
>>>> So on day one, or, let's see, day four, five, and six,
>>>> Beings were brought into being that are identical
>>>> to current living specimens, practically speaking,
>>>> Or, current at the time of writing. That's what
>>>> creationism really means: creation, and then
>>>> no evolution. Which is quite wrong, of course.
>>>>
>>>> The tweaking creator that you say Behe holds to
>>>> would bewilder public school students, and they
>>>> are not what the bible describes. That doesn't
>>>> matter to me, but it matters to the people who
>>>> are supposed to fall for this. I expect that they'
>>>> regard Behe as a dirty wvolutionist.
>>>>
>>>> A thing that still does matter to me is that you must
>>>> not call Alfred Russel Wallace a creationist, and you
>>>> have done so, by defining the term too loosely.
>>>
>>> Grading for Ron's definition of a creationist:
>>>
>>> Technical accuracy: 10/10
>>> Usefulness: 0/10
>>>
>>
>> The definition is the most useful for the current creationist political
>> stupidity because the ID perps have been trying to create their "Big
>> Tent" that they claim includes all types of Biblical creationists.
>> Trying to claim that ID perps are not creationists is just stupid.
>
> I find nothing *useful* whatsoever in a definition that lumps Ken
> Miller, Francis Collins and me in the same category as Ken Ham. It
> obviously appeals to you but I doubt whether many others will find it
> useful either.

On 1/20/2024 1:22 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:17:44 PM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> I find nothing *useful* whatsoever in a definition that lumps Ken
>> Miller, Francis Collins and me in the same category as Ken Ham. It
>> obviously appeals to you but I doubt whether many others will find it
>> useful either.
>
> It is very useful to Ron. His definition has an entirely plausible rationale and yet it differs from the definition that most people here use. That maximizes the number of people Ron can say are wrong. Very useful.
>

You guys are wrong about the definition, and always have been in terms
of what type of creationists the ID perps are. Failure to be able to
apply creationism to what the ID perps believe is a fault for TO. Their
intelligent designer is the Biblical creator. To deny that is stupid.

Ron Okimoto

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 09:53:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/20/2024 12:16 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

[...]

>> I find nothing *useful* whatsoever in a definition that lumps Ken
>> Miller, Francis Collins and me in the same category as Ken Ham. It
>> obviously appeals to you but I doubt whether many others will find it
>> useful either.
>
>That is because you are too dense to understand the difference.

Do you ever get lonely, being the only smart person around here?

[...]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:00:04 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

>On 1/20/2024 1:22 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:17:44?PM UTC-5, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>>> I find nothing *useful* whatsoever in a definition that lumps Ken
>>> Miller, Francis Collins and me in the same category as Ken Ham. It
>>> obviously appeals to you but I doubt whether many others will find it
>>> useful either.
>>
>> It is very useful to Ron. His definition has an entirely plausible rationale and yet it differs from the definition that most people here use. That maximizes the number of people Ron can say are wrong. Very useful.
>>
>
>You guys are wrong about the definition, and always have been in terms
>of what type of creationists the ID perps are. Failure to be able to
>apply creationism to what the ID perps believe is a fault for TO. Their
>intelligent designer is the Biblical creator. To deny that is stupid.
>
>Ron Okimoto

This thread reminds me of older threads in T.O., about whether humans
are apes. With both topics, the discussions quickly devolve into
which of the multiple and contrasting meanings of the offending word
is the correct one. Raging over pedantic semantics is pointless.

"Biblical creator" also has multiple and contrasting meanings, as
illustrated by multiple and contrasting websites. AIG's literalist
Biblical creator is different from RCC's nuance is different from
BioLogos' metaphysics. Use of the phrase does nothing to clarify
your point, and obfuscates an already incoherent discussion.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge