The problem with the Dictionary.com definition of creationism is that it doesn't tell us what a 'literal interpretation' of the Bible entails. Some OECs have suggested that their version of literalism is every bit as literal as the YECs. Will the real literal interpretation please stand up?
A mistake is to insinuate that a Creationist is merely a "belief" system. When I use the word, I mean to indicate those people who argue that there is empirical data that _necessarily_ requires a personal, supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe. In other words, I see Creationists as those people for whom Creation is less a matter of faith and more about the empirical data. This is why Creationism is used as an evangelical weapon. It is constructed to convince those people who do not have a presupposition in God's existence (i.e. a faith). In other words, Creationism is in my books the Design Argument+ -- it asserts that there is evidence of a material nature that must be explained ultimately by a personal supernatural cause.
It really doesn't matter if they stop short of making the inference, as the IDers claim to do in their fancy footwork about aliens and time-travelers. After all, logical inferences need not be completed by those presenting the argument. People like Dembski and Behe have been more than clear that the logical conclusion is that God did it. (Makes sense, right? After all, Creationists, whether the dishonest or honest versions, never fail to bring up the so-who-created-X arguments.)
PS: Krauze should stop smarting about his little science experiment that blew up in his face. He is embarrassing himself everytime he's reminding others of his spinjob.
Why aren't the bloggers at Telic Thoughts DOING science, like we do?
Commenting by HaloScan
