Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:17:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4768 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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.
>
> Just like military intelligence or whatever... There are scientists who are
> Christian, and they came up with a theory and they called it Scientific
> Creationism, in which they try to merge the Biblical stories of creatin with
> scientific principles and ideas, and they did a pretty good job, for the
> most bit--so, like my badly used 'bigoted' word, saying Scientific
> Creationism is an oxymoron is not contributing to a healthy discussion, S.C.
> has just as much right to be at the table of this discussion as Evolution
> and pure Creationism. I'll try to be the first to do away from nadjectives
> (negative adjectives!) used against the ideas I do not concur with.
What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific
Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily
rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non-
sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex nihilo that follows
Genesis to the letter, know in advance that the science supports
generation ex nihilo (sort of) at a much, much, much earlier stage.
(In a sense, you can argue that Big Bang/evolution *is* Creationist;
but because it's not literal the dogmatists have a problem with it.
There's a third way, called "theistic evolution," that most use to
reconcile religion and science--but the dogmatists call it wishy-
washy, shaking hands with Satan, etc., and try to portray it as a
Manichaean choice--which it isn't.)
> /concur Evolution and Creationism are theories
/differ Evolution is a scientific theory (like gravity). Creationism
is an armchair theory (like Gub'mint conspiracies). Different beasts.
Just because it's the same word doesn't make it the same thing.
I may write more later, because this is an area in which I have a fair
expertise (I used to debate creationists who would come to visit our
University campus, which dismayed them because I had both knowledge
*and* an understanding of how to debate. Devastating combination, that.)
But for a general trashing of Creationism, you really need to read
this thread through. A lot of great stuff has come up.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> (...) Pure Creationists believes that the Earth really was created in exactly 6 days, and ignore any scientific eveidence to the contrary. S.C.s (at least me, tell me if i'm wrong (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: <snip> Most of the time in these debates, I feel like the 5 year old trying to understand his older brother and his buddies talking about the stuff they learned in grade 8--sometimes is (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Just like military intelligence or whatever... There are scientists who are Christian, and they came up with a theory and they called it Scientific Creationism, in which they try to merge the Biblical stories of creatin with scientific (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
