To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless. Not to mention that the qualifier you’ve added has not been present in the conversation up to now. The declaration that Creationism (Christianity) is useless has been categorical. It’s too late now for a retreat into reasonableness (not without admitting an omission of epic proportions).
But, aside from that, your qualifier remains inadequate still. Absent Christianity, we may expect that the Tuskegee Experiment would have continued to its conclusion with none the wiser and no lessons learned (let’s hope that there have been lessons learned). Absent Christianity, there would have been no careful moral evaluation before E=MC2 was applied to two cities in Japan.
Methodology without morality is lethal.
“That isn't to say that Christianity is useless.”
No . . . of course not. Even in today’s societal atmosphere. Not yet.
Which is why the term “Creationism” is substituted for “Christianity” in so many posts on this forum (the fallacy of the “smuggled concept”). Which is why I spend even some of my time contesting the abuse of the term “Creationism” used in the many attacks launched against Christianity.
That is making a huge leap from what I said. The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology. It is also useless for cooking, architecture, civil engineering, musical composition and performance, etc. Just because it is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.
Also, I do not use the terms "creationism" and "Christianity" interchangeably, nor do I recall seeing others use those terms interchangeably. The Christian faith (of any denomination) is far greater than a few passages in Genesis, and being a Christian is not contingent upon believing that every word in Genesis is literal. The truth of this is especially apparent when considering that many portions of the Bible are understood to be metaphorical.
But, aside from that, your qualifier remains inadequate still. Absent Christianity, we may expect that the Tuskegee Experiment would have continued to its conclusion with none the wiser and no lessons learned (let’s hope that there have been lessons learned). Absent Christianity, there would have been no careful moral evaluation before E=MC2 was applied to two cities in Japan.
We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours. I do know that early in the 1900s, the Japanese conducted particularly brutal human experiments... I've heard accounts, and seen pictures which are completely stomach-turning. The Germans also conducted horrific human experiments during WWII. One of those societies was not Christian, the other was... it seems to me that ethics are formed by more than Christian faith, although Christianity provides a template on which to base ethics.
Methodology without morality is lethal.
Not necessarily. Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.
Which is why the term “Creationism” is substituted for “Christianity” in so many posts on this forum (the fallacy of the “smuggled concept”). Which is why I spend even some of my time contesting the abuse of the term “Creationism” used in the many attacks launched against Christianity.
As I said above, I do not use the terms interchangeably, nor have I seen anyone else use the terms interchangeably in this thread. I try to be very careful to specify that I'm not even talking about creationism in general. All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal. I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion, and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us. Apparently YECs feel perfectly okay saying those nasty things just because we're in the business of documenting the physical world around us, and our observations don't support the young earth story.