Seeing what man has done in the last couple of thousand years (or hundred) you'd be pretty closed minded to write off the possibility of a creationist. Not saying that man has it right about who or what god is, but the possibility. Think about what simulations man has made on computers and technology (we're still really new and young imo) and hypothetically compare that to the possibility that there are more advanced life forms out there in the ether by billions/trillions/infinite amount of time to understand science, space, technology, creation. To me, there is definitely the possibility that earth is a simulation and there is a creationist just as much as the possibility that there isn't as well.
ah, the famous "reality is a hologram" view of the cosmos.
"We have dreamed the world.... and the dream exists only in our minds....."
a chemist puzzling over the formula for benzene, trying to create a model of how the six carbons and six hydrogens conformed to ideas of bonding, spent months fruitlessly, unable to draw the picture.... until one night he dreamed of the molecule catching it's own tail and forming a circle. The dreamed arrangement turned out to be the one solution to the bonding requirements.....
Our minds are wonderful tools, nobody knows how they really work.... or don't work, in some cases.... it is the "not working" pathologies that reveal to us the things our minds actually do, clearly showing the deficit that results from the injury or failure to form properly.....
IMO, the purely rational, objective "mind" is one example we can learn from, that reveals how a fully-functioning mind transcends the limitations of little logical formulations like "evolution", which essentially hijacks human creativity and reduces it to a wreck.
The logic of ancient shepherds puzzling over the creation may be another example of reason gone wrong, but IMO we don't do much better trying to hammer reality into our logic today, either.
I have no problem being a devout believer in a creator/God with all the knowledge we have attained, including DNA technological equipment/techniques we now have, and more. I don't know how to put limits on the possibles.
But I see no need to hold the biblical chronology as either true or necessary for the existence of a God we have never fully understood. We have just been children babbling in the sandbox, and now beginning to learn a few things.
Charles Darwin wrote within the text of "Origin of Species" that his book in no way should compromise faith in God. A few religious scientists have always been around saying the geological records and scales of time do not impede faith in God, and in fact it is a tenet of logic that a failure to demonstrate the existence of God, however we try to define "God", is not a proof of "non-existence" of some form of "God".
But hey, ideological adherents to any of the Marxist assertions, including denial of "God", are by their own system taught to be determined liars to advance their cause. Pretty useless to throw any pearls out to that class of intellectual wretches......
