Subject:
|
Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:09:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4130 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > This is a totally different topic, but showing your bias against creationism
> > by saying it isn't reality, is as bigoted as those Bible thumpers who say
> > that the world came into existence on October 4, 6006 BC and dumbly adhere
> > to that date.
>
> Then let's restate it this way: Of the explanations currently on the
> table for how we arrived where we are today, evolution provides more
> complete, explanatory answers and makes more accurate, testable predictions
> than Creationism, and understanding of evolution has led to greater advances
> in biology and medicine than 100 centuries of pre-Darwin understanding.
> Therefore, by the criteria employed by the Western world for at least
> several centuries, evolution is a better rational, explanatory model of
> reality than Creationism, and acceptance of evolution as an explanation
> requires fewer (and smaller) leaps of faith than does belief in Creationism.
> Since evolution is a testable model that can be falsified, modified, and
> corrected to correspond to newly-acquired information, I would say that it
> is inherently less dogmatic than Creationism based on faith and on
> irreproducible revelation. "Bigoted" is an odd word to use there, since
> Creationists are not necessarily bigoted, but if they adhere to The Word in
> the face of all rational evidence, then I would say at the very least that
> their criteria for judgment are incomplete.
I don't think that most Christians (including me) believe that the Earth and
Solar Sytem was created in 6 days (rotations of the Earth). Since there was
no Earth to set the time, that wouldn't even make sense. I think that most
Christians--again, I don't *know* this, but being a Christian with knowledge
of science, it seems to be common sense--believe that the account in the
Book of Genesis is an incomplete version, one that has not been fully explained.
Not what most Christians believe, but what I and some other religious
scholars believe:
Genesis chapter one is description of the spiritual creation, i.e. the
organization of the "spirit matter" so that the physical Earth could be
created (1). Unfortunatly, much of the Bible, especially Genesis, has been
lost and mixed up in translation and alteration.
End this section/
The hypothesis of evolution (yes, it is still a hypothesis, according to the
scientific method) is full of holes and does not make much sense. While
minor evolution--i forget the official term--development within a species'
genetic code, for example, dogs, has been proved to be possible, major
evolution into an entirely different species has not been proven to be
possible. While the fossil record shows simple organisms, and then more
complex organisms as the layers go forward in age, this is not evidence of
development, this indicates that God placed them there as time went on, and
the more complex organisms replaced the simple ones. This was all neccessary
to prepare an ecosystem and atmosphere (not to mention mineral
deposits--created by bacteria--and FOSSIL fuels) for modern life forms,
including of course us. It's simple terraforming: gradully advance organisms
to create an advanced, adaptible, large, and oxygen producing ecosystem.
Getting back to evolution, the fossil record shows clear gaps between
species. There are always missing links. (this also, FYI, shows that
creationist scientist do NOT believe two contradictory things.)
> > We today don't know what happened back then for certain. We can make
> > educated guesses but they would be guesses, or theories. Theories are *not*
> > laws and, as such, should not be stated as such to be Reality.
I agree, although more has been revealed than you think. I hope you found
this informative as well as interesting, and I hope you will think more
about it.
<snipped some here>
Curt Tigges
(1) This is explained by LDS scholar Eric Skousen, in his book Earth in the
Beginning.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes: First of all, "Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron, so let's dispense with that term and stick with Creationism. (...) Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
