Creationist Philosophy

[SLD]

A quote from a creationist:

No true conclusion is grounded upon a false narrative that cannot satisfy its own burden of proof but by a hypothetical presupposition asserted AS the truth manifest in reality, without evident declaration and demonstration either known or knowable to exist, in due process of time, objectively.

Subjectivism isn’t a scientifically entailed philosophy. Scientism is such an entailment, objectively found in every evolutionists’ narrative.

I am certain.

 

[pood]

Is there a translation to English for that?

 

[Elixir]

Is there a translation to English for that?

Yes: Religion is bullshit that rots the mind.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I read it a couple of times, and it seems purposely opaque to me. At a guess, I think it's their old trope about science being just another religion, and if it is, they can stuff it up an archaeopteryx's bunghole.

 

[DBT]

I guess that is what someone trying to sound clever looks like.

 

[SLD]

I think the guy is trying to sound intellectual. Subjectivism is a valid philosophical concept that can be discussed. But I’m not sure what he means by scientifically entailed. Or what he means by scientism.

If anyone is interested in joining the conversation that this guy has posted (he’s posted a lot of this kind of crap), but feel free to join us in Facebook group called “Creation Science vs Religion of Evolution”. We need more “scientismistic” people.

 

[Elixir]

Even the thread title is an oxymoron. Creationists don’t sell philosophies, they sell dogma. In that respect the title is a perfect little mirror of the subject garbled nonsense.

 

[pood]

Even the thread title is an oxymoron. Creationists don’t sell philosophies, they sell dogma. In that respect the title is a perfect little mirror of the subject garbled nonsense.

At best it’s a contradiction, not an oxymoron. Strictly an oxymoron consists of two seemingly contradictory words which, when put together, generate a new and novel meaning. Actually I’d say that “creationist philosophy” is not even a contradiction; creationists have a philosophy, after a fashion, just not one that is very good — not supported by argument and evidence.

 

[James Brown]

Science asks questions that may never be answered.

Religion gives answers that may never be questioned.

 

[Elixir]

not supported by argument and evidence.

= dogma.

 

[pood]

The “scientism” mentioned in the incoherent quote in the OP is a philosophical stance that only scientific statements have any meaning — an obvious contradiction, since “only scientific statements have any meaning” is not a scientific statement. Anyhow, that’s hardly relevant, since there is no “scientism” is the theory of evolution, only science, and they are not the same thing.