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.
Really? I think it is you making the “huge leap.” It is beginning to occur to you that other important value judgments exist besides “scientific” value judgments. It’s just that these other values have become so woven into our culture that in your mind they have become axiomatic. Besides, in college “the subject never came up.”
“The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology.”
Already you have to walk back a flat assertion with a qualifier which did not exist in the conversation prior to my post #143. Now you elect to retrospectively make it specific to scientific methodology. Not credible (nor accurate).
“It is also useless for cooking . . .
Tell that to an observant Jew.
“architecture . . .
Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.
“civil engineering . . . ”
Well . . . you got me. I can’t think of a single thing impelling a civil engineer to ethical behavior. Perhaps a civil engineer will be willing to enlighten us.
“musical composition and performance . . . ”
Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.
“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.”
Meaning what? That the Judeo-Christian God has no relevance in our day-to-day, ordinary existence, that is, to “any number of human activities”? I know of no Judeo-Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe, and that He is relevant to all “human activities.” Do you? What, then, is our “standing with God”?
It is this issue (our “standing” with God) that drove Jefferson to observe that just as society is made for man, so man is made for society (emphasis mine). It is this issue that drove Franklin to observe that God governs in the affairs of men (“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”) And let us note that Franklin was careful say “governs” not “rules,” thereby acknowledging the existence of Mankind’s free will (another gift of the Creator).
When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was not speaking only his thoughts, but the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. The Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty. Look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV of the Holy Bible. It is said that that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture.
To rip out Creationism from Judeo-Christianity is to rip out the heart of the religion and leave but a husk. If God is not the creator of Mankind and of the Universe, then why is He worshiped by over two billion followers? And, why do one and a half billion more people try to piggyback their faith on the early events precipitated by the Judeo-Christian Creator?
”We do not know how the Tuskegee experiment would have played out in a society with different ethics than ours.”
Irrelevant. The experiment “played out” in this society . . . with the ethics appearing retrospectively to the preponderance of the experiment. We can guess how the Tuskegee Experiment might have “played out” in the Japanese society you mention (the Japanese society before 1946) or in the Nazi culture of Dr Mengele . . . very much like it was playing out here until Science learned late in the game that a society with a Judeo-Christian Tradition has ethics.
“Plenty of scientific research can be performed without ever considering morality.”
Are you proposing, as did one staunch “defender” of Science (now self-exiled to the icy confines of Darwin Central), that scientific research has no point? So desperate was he to establish that no cultural values were tied to Science. Is science research really done purely for its own sake, divorced from any human values?
“I do not use the terms interchangeably” (Creationism & Christianity)
As you properly should not. Creationism is not a religion . . . in the context we are discussing here, it is the most fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religion – that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of Mankind and the Universe. Creationism does not inform the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is the Judeo-Christian religion that informs Creationism.
“All of my comments specifically address the idea that the creation story in Genesis is literal.”
Literal, like a science textbook? Not hardly. Yet in any lesser vein must we accept the Biblical creation story as “existentialist nonsense” or, “thought meandering”? The some sixty-six odd books of the KJV translation all existed before anyone ever heard of a science textbook. As did the original transcripts from which the KJV was drawn, as well as the apocrypha, which was the task of one whole “company” of KJV translators, as well as the additional books of the RC bible. All are meant to convey the meaning of God’s Word and are to be interpreted literally, metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. How are we to receive “In the beginning” if not literally?
“I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball "Darwinism" religion . . . ”
When have I done those things?
“. . . and all of the other nasty things literal young-earth creationists (YECs) say about us.”
If your quarrel is with the YECs (or some part of them), why do you cast aspersions on a whole religion rather than take up your dispute specifically with YECs?
Some time ago I described to you a group of scientists (or a group who represent themselves as scientists or spokesmen for scientists) who cited Science, specifically evolution, as being sufficient cause to deny the existence of God. You denied any knowledge of such a group, repudiated any connection with them, and rejected any responsibility for their behavior. Yet, somehow you expect me to now accept ownership of the behavior of a group with whom I enjoy no association other than a common religion.
Why?