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?
You're still making a big leap to conclusions. Please point out the post, in this or any other thread, where I said, overtly or implicitly, that science is a system of values or morality. I have never said that. I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession, not the other way around. Perhaps you have read creationist websites where those selling literal creationism flat-out say that science is a religion, and you are projecting that belief on me?
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).
I used exactly the same qualifier in post #137; I have "walked nothing back." Even in allmendream's posts, where he didn't put "scientific" and "useless" in the same sentence about creationism, it was clear by the context that he was referring to the utility of creationism to guide scientific inquiry.
Tell that to an observant Jew.
Um... okay. So if I decide to cook a Passover dinner for one of my orthodox Jewish friends, I'll just pull out the Bible instead of Googling Passover recipes. Right.
Witness the many edifices (both high and low) raised to the glory of the Creator.
Sing praises to God, the Creator of Mankind and of the Universe. The concert repertoire is rife with references to the Creator.
Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood. Listen to the number of songs glorifying atheism, socialism, or foul treatment of women. The evidence indicates that morality is brought to, not imparted by, the profession. I cannot think of a single profession where that is not true.
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”? ...
You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said. I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy, and you dove head-first into it here. That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God--there are many Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc., who see a completely different faith-based relevance to their daily lives. What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.
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.
How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research? Are you aware that everyone involved in the Tuskegee experiment believed in the rightness of what they were doing, that they were doing something good for the research subjects? The big moral lapse that occurred during the Tuskegee experiment was that when a treatment for syphilis was developed, the treatment was not offered to the research subjects, and the experiment continued. Had no treatment for syphilis been invented, and the experiment continued, there may not have been an outcry at all. Although there was the matter of all the subjects being poor black men... which might have raised outrage, but for a different reason.
aAre 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?
So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity? You can find any number of professionals who chose their profession because of a personal passion. Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless. Would you also say that the work of our many men and women in uniform has no point as well, because many of them joined the military purely for the sake of being in the military?
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?
Throughout the course of these discussions, I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general. If I were trying to disparage all of Christianity, I would never have stated that there is no reason to believe that being a scientist and being a Christian are incompatible.