Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:13:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4672 times
|
| |
|
|
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 above me :), but that never stopped me before.
> 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
See, it's probably the wording--armchair theory--like armchair coaching--if
my brother were the head coach for the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Leafs would
have won the cup every year for the last 35 years. The wording, and
therefore the tone belittles the theory. 'Scientific' is a bucnh of
educated intelligent folks, 'armchair' is some overweight dude yelling at
the TV. Maybe semantics but the very wording causes separation--hard to get
away from, tho.
I know many padres (my cute way of saying pastors from an old stroy I read
years ago but stuck so I call my minister friends, 'Hey Padre...' sometimes,
whatever...) that are quite educated--they are not dumb people who are given
charge for nurturing the flocks. We, like sheep you may say, but the folks
in the flocks are sometimes educated as well. The point, which I am indeed
getting around to, is that more intelligent people than myself have grappled
with this issue, and reading the posts and links from these posts, show me
that there are points to be made from both camps.
I remember a few years back that a "Scientific Creationist" theory came out
that I rather enjoyed--the world, when it 'came into being' (whether from
God snapping his fingers or over millions of years) had a canopy of water
vapour surrounding it--the world was enveloped by water vapour. Not the
clouds and humidity we have now, but an honest-to-goodness water vapour
barrier in the high atmosphere surrounding the planet. That is how, they
surmise, all those people lived to be as long as they did--the barrier
stopped all that bad radiation waves from getting down to the people, and
therefore no ageing by the sun, no cancer, et al. However, the earth
cooled, just a few degrees over time, and the vapour condensed, and it
rained and rained and rained, a la Noah's flood. These Christian scientists
use the idea that fossilized remains of fish 'n stuff found high in the
mountains show that this could have been a possibility.
I don't know how much that reflects my belief--I know that mountains that
exist today could have been much lower than thay are before, even
underwater, and due to continental shifts and such, rose from the ocean and
whatever, so how the underwater fossils got there could have happened that
way...
I know that in my Old Testament class, my professor, (who helped rewrite the
book of Job in a new translation of the Bible) says that the wording in the
Flood story says 'the 'known' earth was flooded', his point being that it
wasn't necessarily the entire earth that was flooded.
However, the water vapour theory is an interesting theory.
You put a bunch of Evolutionists into a room and they will have different
theories as to the hows and whys, and just perusing links posted earlier
points that out.
You put Creationists into a room and they will have very different views as
to the creation story.
The only thing that I come back to is that nature, all by its very nature,
can produce spectacularly complex patterns (spider webs, fern leaves,
stripes on a zebra) Nature can do many things like that--but fractal
geometry and a whole bunch of other stuff shows that complexity, in its
component elements, is very simplistic. It just needs an original seed and
send it on its way. To get truly complex and differing structures ranging
across many different strata, away from fractals (which shows similar
patterns from the very small to the very large) takes an intelligence.
Nature does not have intelligence--nature just has action and reaction, at
whatever level you look at it.
Something, or someone started this mess we call life, for before the Big
Bang, what was there?
Anyway, as stated earlier, reading some of these posts is illuminating--some
of you seem to be educated and well read. I wish I could contribute the
same, but alas, I cannot, for dem dar new fangled 'puters is where I sunk my
efforts (as well as a few other things like Eddings, Asimov, JRR, and Adams :) )
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Precisely. And all said, we will never know. The theories of Evolution and "Creationism" (I'd call it a belief, not a theory, but whatever) are 2 sides of the same coin. *Neither* are proveable, and the debate is similar to the "existence of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
