It is an informed opinion based upon a wealth of evidence without a single contradictory point of evidence.
Creationism is useless.
Absent any contradictory information I stand behind this formulation.
Creationism is of no use.
Your inability to name any practical use speaks volumes.
As does your inability to even give an opinion about if the differences between a mouse and a rat is a “micro” evolutionary difference or a “macro” evolutionary difference.
Science is of use in determining such answers.
Creationism is obviously of no use to you in making such a determination.
I will try to address your assertion. What I am sure of is that my feeble attempt to answer your assertion will be met with derision and rejection on your part. Nevertheless, I will give it a good ole college try. I will use the proper definition of creationism.
As I tried to explain in my post #297 the answer lies not in just effect but also motive and philosophical application to life. As I stated, there is an essential equivalency of the view of decent and design. Both are historical 'science' and therefore are not provable by direct inspection nor by scientific methodology. Strictly speaking, common decent is an abductive or historical inference. By definition, abductive inferences attempt to establish past causes by viewing present effects. Hence it is more accurate to refer to common decent as a theory rather than a fact, i.e. what in fact happened in the past? The accurracy of such theories and the underlying inferences can be used efficaciously to undermine those theories. Establishing the past with certainty, even to a reasonable certitude can be wrought with difficulties. Neither homologies, biogeographical distribution, embryological similarity, nor the presence of rudimentary organs establish common decent beyond reasonable doubt. Even the seemingly invincible molecular homologies are dependent upon an a priori certainty that similarity cannot be the result of design. That magesterial science 'chooses' to exclude the metaphysical reality of one view (design) to the predelection of another metaphysical view (decent) seems arbitrary.
I will not go to the trouble of chronicaling what has already been explained regarding the metaphysical nature of both. Whether you and I accept one view as metaphysical and another as otherwise, even the great Stephen J. Gould affirmed the metaphysical reality of the theory of decent.
So, that said, what is useless and what is useful? When my wife is boiling a pot of water and I ask her what she is doing, she might say, "I am applying energy to water, the molecules of water are beginning to move at a greater and greater speed until the liquid becomes a vapor,...or she might say, "I am heating some water to make a cup of tea." Both answers would be correct. But the usefulness of the answers might be meaningful to differnet people in different circumstances. I am inclined to say, in answer to your assertion about the usefulness of creationism is that God is in the details. By that I mean, there are many lines of scientific study and evidence which points to a point in the past when time, space, matter, and energy did not exist. (I am sure you are aware of those studies). All point to a moment when the universe seemingly exploded into existence, out of nothing. Prior to that point we ask what was the cause of the universe? Like decent we approach this question abductively, not by direct observation. By induction we can make reasonable conclusions about the nature of that cause, those being that the agent would be timeless, incomprehensively powerful, unimaginably intelligent to set the whole universe into being and motion, and personal due to the fact that a decision must have been made by that agent. If people who believe, as George Smoote, the project manager for COBE, and athiest, said, "It is as if we have seen the fingerprints of God", then those people, not you, but those people, who seek the truth find it supremely useful to know that the universe was created and that there is a Creator. The dedifferentiation of decent and its method of verification from design and its subsequent scientific application is arbitrary and capricious and without methodological proof and observability.
There are those people who find use in knowing and understanding the truth. There are those people who find seeking the understand the truth as useful. There are those who see beyond the physicalist, those who see nature of life as dualism, and have good reason to believe just that, who begin with the Creator because they have stuied creationism and their unvarnished pursuit of truth takes them to that Agent of Creation. These people find creationism of value simply because all of science, Christian theism, Judaic Theism affirm, logically that it is truth. There are those who say the truth is useless, but again, that is one man's opinion. In fact, for the physicalist, naturalist, Darwinist, atheist, truth cannot exist, as cannot logic, reason, or rational thought. That may explain the unequivocal assertion that creationism is useless. Decent or design allows similar scientific application of modern molecular biology. You have chosen your poison, so to speak. I will never convince you of any usefulness of creationism, of that I am sure. But you exclude yourself from essentially the whole of science who affirm the universe came to be in a rather large explosion out of nothing. That moment of creation has become mainstream doctrine. That is why I asked you the question which I did. Rather than simply answering the question you chose to redefine terms.
I will stop the discussion, as it is clear to me that, while I do not find creationism as useless, I find trying to convince you otherwise is useless. Good luck to you. Perhaps we can have another discussion at another time.
Allmendream I have referred you in the past, and do so again today to two young earth creation scientists who have made correct and accurate predictions regarding creation science.
It is only useless to you because you refuse to read the works of:
Dr. Russell Humphreys PhD and
Dr Walt Brown PhD.
More specifically the former in the book ‘Starlight and Time’
and the latter in the book ‘In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood’
Good day sir!