Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:50:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks 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 agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a
> belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists
> are thinking about, I think the name is fit.
"Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my
assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in
another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge
that it's fair to call Creationism a theory, but it's not a scientific one.
To me, and to the entirety of mainstream science (as far as I'm aware)
"Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism" is no less a misuse of
"science" as a descriptor than "astrological science" or "reike science" or
"tarot science" would be. They are *not* science or even scientific,
despite the wishes of those who adhere to those beliefs.
Lindsay has also pointed out several of the ways Creationism falls short
of the term "science," and I defer to his wisdom for further discussion of
why Creationism isn't scientific.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Oh, I agree. But were I a Christian, I would still see the overwhelming evidence, believe in evolution as the most likely explanation of the origin of species, and search for a way to justify my religious belief with my scientific observation. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (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
|
|
|
|
