Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:59:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.
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. In doing so, I might attempt to design a theory that handles the
scientific evidence for evolution and my personal(?) evidence for my religous
beliefs.
Now I don't specifically know what these Scientific Creationism folks believe,
and you and Lindsay certainly know more than I about this, but would you call a
theory scientific that did attempt to corroborate the Biblical account with
real evidence?
And what would you name such a "hybrid?"
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) "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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
