And in my post #143, I pointed out that it was in your post #137 that your qualifier signaled a “walking back” of a prior categorical assertion.
“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.”
Not a credible statement; amd’s assertion is categorical: “creationism is useless.” Period. No qualifiers.
“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.”
Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?
“Witness the number of edifices used by Planned Parenthood.”
Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising. In our society (Western Civilization), the prevailing attitude seems to be that wherever any other model exists, the Judeo-Christian Tradition must vacate.
Your original synopsis seemed to be that, besides scientific methodology, Creationism is useless for “cooking,” for “architecture,” for “musical composition.” I provided counter examples. You didn’t like them, suggesting the presence of other influences somehow negated the Judeo-Christian tradition. And, oh yeah, with “civil engineering” I had to confess a lack of an adequate rejoinder.
“You're taking things way beyond the scope of what I said.”
The “Who, Me?” defense. I asked for clarification. What I receive is “Who? Me?”
“I thought I made it clear previously that I do not care to discuss philosophy”
Off again. “Who? Me?” You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.
“That said, I can point out that there are large numbers of people who have not accepted the relevance of a Judeo-Christian God”
On again. Which proves what? Are we back to the presence of any other entity vacates the Judeo-Christian?
“What I meant by "our standing with God" is our personal understanding of our relationship with God.”
It’s personal . . . and not to be discussed?
“How much time have you spent actually discussing the Tuskegee experiment, and its relevance to the evolving field of ethics in medical research?”
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
“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.”
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK? The fact that a cure was developed well before the experiment’s conclusion notwithstanding, another “big moral lapse” that resided in the Tuskegee Experiment, at its inception, was the knowledge of the intense suffering the subjects (and their families) would endure in the disease’s advanced stages.
But . . . you know . . . eggs – omelette.
“So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?”
Which obviates . . . what?
“Being personally driven to do a particular kind of work does not make that work pointless.”
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
“I've made an effort to be very clear about the fact that I am criticizing YECs, and not Christians in general.
By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.
Now . . . put on your best wounded “Who, Me?”
From my post #137: As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.
From your post #143: To assert what you are saying is to assert that Christianity is useless.
It appears that I had the qualifier there all along. It was also apparent from allmendream's previous post that he was specifically talking about creationism in that same context, even though he didn't place the qualifier in the same sentence.
Don’t be insulting. The reason you would Google “Passover recipes” is because of your guests’ religious beliefs. Now you are proposing that a Torah (or a bible) must be read as though it were a recipe book?
I had specifically said creationism is useless for COOKING, whereupon you tried to inflate that statement to claim that I was talking about Jewish dietary laws. Even if I were (which I was not), I can still say that creationism is useless as a guide to those, as well. The Jewish dietary laws are set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not in Genesis.
Yeah, and witness the number that are used by religions. Both Judeo-Christian and others. Likewise the presence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the concert repertoire. Your narrative seems to prove in your mind that the presence of other influences obviates the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is not surprising.
You're still missing the point. The use of a tool for good or evil does not make the tool itself good or evil. Remember the old saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"? You seem to be trying to convince me that things are good or evil, which is not a premise I accept.
You don’t care to discuss philosophy except when you care to discuss philosophy. Don’t start a brawl and then announce you’re leaving the party. If you don’t care to discuss philosophy . . . don’t discuss philosophy.
*I* haven't brought up philosophy. In every case in which it has been discussed, it was brought up by someone else. My *only* discussion of it has been to say that I avoid it.
So, there is ethics in Science? Or is that only when it’s convenient for there to be ethics in Science?
See above. Science is a methodology, a tool, and as such, has no intrinsic ethics. Just as with the use of any other tool, the ethics are contained within the practioner. Remember, guns don't kill people--people kill people.
The “evolving” ethics just weren’t advanced enough? A fuller discussion of the “lapse” somehow makes it all OK?
Does the fact that the field of applying ethics to research is still evolving somehow make it invalid? Do we expect fields of human knowledge to spring forth, fully developed and in their final form, in order for them to be valid? The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on "ethics" alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.
So you don’t endorse those who look to divorce Science from cultural values (as do some)?
Again, see above. Cultural values may be brought to the practice of science, but science is not a driver of cultural values. Guns, people, kill, etc.
By “Christians in general” do you include the Creationist beliefs shared by all Judeo-Christians? I have to hand it to you. You’ve maintained plausible deniability better than do most.
By saying "Christians in general", I am expressing the fact that those who believe that the Genesis story is a literal accounting of events that happened ~6,000 years ago are only a subset of Christians, and are not reflective of all Christians. You can certainly believe that God created the universe without doggedly holding to a literal YEC belief that is directly contradicted by physical evidence.