What do you think is the ultimate goal, if any, of creationists?

Nonsense. There isn’t any evidence that there’s anything “spiritual”. So people have a feeling; so what? People have plenty of feelings that are wrong. And claiming that it’s a " huge chunk of what it means to be human" is just an argument that humans are deeply defective.

Omniscience and omnipotence violate numerous physical laws. Which is normally considered a perfectly good reason to call something impossible - except religion. I’m just applying the same standards to religion that I do to everything else, instead of putting it in a special category where nothing but the mindless acceptance of every insane scrap of dogma is the only permitted position. Religion simply doesn’t hold up as anything but something to be laughed at unless you completely turn off your judgment. As religious people themselves help demonstrate when they roll their eyes at the silly things believed by other religions.

And my point is that it is indeed impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, as it is not within the realm of science to do so. Der Trihs seems to be suggesting that science is showing God’s existence to be impossible; I maintain that science cannot make a determination on the issue.

Well, damn! Who let that happen? :slight_smile:

I’m not convinced there is a goal in any pragmatic sense like those you mention in the OP, most of the time.

It’s just a protest of their belief.

But the argument I have heard for Young-Earthers is that preserving Christianity (in a Biblicist Protestant sense) is vitally important, and thus any challenge to Biblical inerrancy threatens the religion itself.

Their goal is about religion and society, and not really about science.

No-that is definitely not the reason science cannot prove or disprove God, and apparently you didn’t get my point. Science cannot prove or disprove God unless you provide a solid definition of what it is Science is supposed to prove or disprove in the first place. It’s got nothing to do with Religion, and everything to do being (sometimes deliberately) vague and misleading when questioned.

Define God. The tri-omni God can be proven to be logically inconsistent - no science required. The God who created the world 6,000 years ago and killed everyone but 8 in a flood can be scientifically proven to not exist. The God who created the universe by starting the Big Bang and then withdrew obviously can’t be proven to not exist. However that God doesn’t seem to be interested in my sex life.
Nearly everyone in the West uses God as if that term were well defined, and as if everyone thought God had the same characteristics that they think it has.

I don’t have an exact cite, but this was covered in Skeptical Inquirer 5 - 10 years back. What seemed to happen (and maybe there is an old debate on YouTube somewhere) was that the scientist would give a more or less description of evolution while the creationist would use debating tricks and spout more disinformation than could be corrected in a debate format. A lie can be told in a sentence - the truth correcting it might take paragraphs or pages. The creationists seemed to be slightly less honest than politicians in a debate. The best solution for science was to stop doing it.

I think the New Atheists have learned a lesson, since they seem to mix good points with quite a bit of snark, and have been a lot more effective.

San Diego State University ceased holding creation/evolution debates when the creation side started introducing obviously fallacious arguments.

Duane Gish is famous for making claims, having them disproven…and making them again in his next appearance.

The immediate goal is to poke holes in theories of biological macro-evolution. They have, in fact, already conceded to the point that variuos things on this planet evolve – insects, animals, plants, and geological formations. They refuse to take the next logical step and let go of the idea that an entity – most frequently the deity of monotheism is indicated – started the whole thing.

A broader goal is to maintain the postulate that the deity (particularly that of monotheism) had/has particular fondness for human beings. Some would suggest unique formation, some suggest divine favor, some suggest other things. They key is in suggesting humans are intrinsically superior to other living and non-living objects on this planet – indeed, that the planet itself is special and central to the deity’s awareness.

The ultimate goal is, strangely enough, more mundane: If they are able to undermine the science of biology (which my biology professor noted was ‘merely’ an advanced specialization of chemistry which is an advanced specialization of physics, then their slippery slope reasons they can undermine geology, astronomy/astrophysics, and other sciences as well. By undermining the sciences, upon which so much of our engineering and technological progress is founded (applied physics = engineering, get it?) they can undermine the rest of secular education, as well. By undermining secular education, they can impede the spread critical thinking. Why? Because critical thinking is antithetic to blind faith. Without blind faith (or, more succinctly, when challenged by critical thinkers), religious myths and dogma lose their ability to hold members due to the critical thinkers’ ability to comprehend the fallacies and manipulations of the religious institution. In other words, the more people learn to think critically, the less power they give to religion.

In fact, I was reading an old TIME magazine article on “the downfall of Christianity” that suggest the latest wave of political activism among Christians was very much an alarmist reaction to analyis of the 2000 census data showing church membership had dropped to less than 50% in the United States. It wasn’t much, something like 49.8%, but it was a threshold figure that was alarming and the pastor that read it felt he needed to do something and he started a campaign to get Christian voices to be louder (if not more abundant). The rest, as the cliche goes, is history: Neo-Puritans striving to dominate political spheres from town halls to the Texas Schoolbook Content Review Boards, to presidential elections. In other words, they see that they lost authority long ago; they’re mobilizing because they know they’re losing power, as well.

The ultimate goal is to retain some semblance of power and relevancy in modern lives, if only for a little while.
Okay, so somebody basically said, “Just let them believe. How can it harm those who don’t share their belief?”

Basically because the canon of the (Christian) creationists is that, in the words of my favorite cult movie, “There can be only ONE!” and therefore a True Believing Christian can’t abide alternate concepts of the universe or its theological underpinnings. Furthermore, the prophecy section basically says there can’t be a Rapture (Jesus comes back and takes everybody back to Heaven) until faith in God (via his Son) is unanimous, planet-wide. If they can’t get the United States to at least say it believes unanimously, how can they possibly get the rest of the world to do so?

Why not start with other countries? Spain kicked out all the non-believers once, right? The point is that the United States has been dominating the world for quite a while and that dominance will also be leveraged to get the rest of the world to follow suit – once everyone has been converted first (whether they like it or just say they do).

I can understand the wrath of some of the other responders here, who see that the Christian Creationist isn’t willing to share the planet with non-believers. Polk and Custer leveraged that sentiment once, so did Hitler.

—G!

Two men say they’re Jesus!
One of them must be wrong!
. Mark Knopfler (Dire Straits)
. Industrial Disease
. Brothers in Arms

Unlike Der Trihs (with whom, however, I have far more agreement than disagreement) I see a kind of “artistic” or “aesthetic” value to religion. I see religious preference as akin to preferences in flavors, or kinds of music, or styles of art. If someone derives pleasure from belief in God, well, that’s not really any of my business.

It’s when aggressive people start to try to mandate others’ preferences – “You can’t eat chocolate because God says chocolate is unclean!” – that religion becomes inimical.

When you can provide a proof that Odin, Zeus, Osiris…and the Flying Spaghetti Monster…don’t exist, let me know.

Meanwhile, if you try to compel me to sacrifice a ram to any of the above, well, we’re gonna have issues.