GakuseiDon

They certainly do. On the other hand, I'm sure that many creationists feel the same way. It would be so easy for a creationist to point to Minimalist's earlier statement ("they ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood") as an example on how creationists' "scientific discoveries" are ignored.

... And let's keep it that way, by avoiding stereotyping. That's my point.

GakuseiDon

No, they don't say that science/history are wrong, but that most scientists and historians are biased and incapable of being objective. If they were REALLY objective (that is, had the same views of the fundamentalists) then they would see that science and history supported the fundamentalist view.

Jeffrey Gibson

Here's a good example of this sort of claim, where the criterion of true objectivity is agreement with what one believes, and where the (unproved and unsubstantiated) assertion of bias is used as, and is assumed to be the only possible, explanation for why "the truth" of one's views has not been seen:

Jeffrey

Toto

I don't think you understood the point. Are you trying to stick up for creationists as being other than ideologues who distort evidence in their favor? If that is a stereotype, what is wrong with it?

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Do you understand that you have paraphrased the nature of the mainstream claim concening the (ahem) "historical" Jesus?

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

If I thought you had even the glimmer of an inkling of what the nature of this claim is (even assuming that you've actually read "mainstream scholarship"), as well as of what Arius was up to, and what Julian claimed, then I might be inclined to take what you say into considiration. But ....

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

Er, well, it was my point. If you have a different point, then that's wonderful.

Let me recap:

Minimalist said that creationists "ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood".

I responded that this is a stereotype, as they don't ignore that fact. They actually go to a lot of trouble to try to explain it away, using science. This, for me, represents an opportunity to engage creationists on the science. Thus Minimalist's comment that creationists ignore these problems is a missed opportunity. Any creationist who reads some of the dreadful "scientific explanations" supporting creationism will come away with the view that Minimalist is ignorant on the "science" behind creationism.

Minimalist's comment is not the crime of the century, btw. It's a minor minor matter, but one I felt should be responded to. Creationists don't ignore science, they claim they are making the better use of it. It is the scientist that is failing due to built-in biases (according to the creationists). I just think this needs to be kept in mind. It's a bit of a hobby horse for me. Sometimes I just get obsessed about things, I'm afraid.

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually what I've done is summed up the nature of your claim concerning why no one buys into your thesis.

Jeffrey

Toto

I think then that you are misusing the word stereotype.

Note this is an engagement that Minimalist has said they will duck.

I've noticed.

Minimalist

Don, if you believe in a god you can pretty well assert that he can do anything you want him to do, I suppose. Personally, I'd rather see the rabbit come out of the hat.