Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:57:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> <snip>
>
> > What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific
> > Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily
> > rooted in theistic dogma.
>
> 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 about the general beliefs of scientific
> creationists) beleive that Geneisis Chapter one is a an account of the
> spirtual creation, and that the Creation actually took millions of years.
> How is that illogical? I would be more prone to say that your theory of
> evolution is illogical.
It's not "my theory," and in fact it's very logical--and where
it's not, it is open to challenge and change. That's the strength
of science--that it's willing to admit that it does not have all
the answers, yet. Remember that before evolutionary theory, it
was special creation that was the dominant idea; but that idea
has zero explanatory power. What is it about evolution that
seems so illogical to you?
But in any case, I think you threw me with your lingo--in the
evo/creo debate, "Scientific Creationism" usually refers to two
types: YEC, or "Young Earth Creationism," which you call "pure"
creationism, and OEC or "Old Earth Creationism," which believes
life is created whole and complete on a pre-existing Earth. The
important distinction between these creationisms and "theistic
evolution" is the existence of special creation--the generation
ex nihilo of animals and plants in their present forms, whole
and complete, by a deity.
The major difference between evolution and "theistic evolution,"
of course, is that the former makes no explicit claims about God
or spirituality; the latter envisions evolution as part of God's
plan. The CW is that theistic evolution is by far the dominant
belief about the origins of life on Earth in the world--the evidence
tells us HOW life developed, but not WHY in any meaningful meta-
physical sense. Anyone who tells you that evolution requires
atheism is a big fat hairy liar--evolution's silence on the subject
ought not be taken as an editorial stance.
The question, then, is do you believe in special creation, or in
theistic evolution? I'd encourage you to look over at
http://www.talkorigins.org/ to see all the flavors and varieties
of Creationism, as well as some other theories of the origins of
life that range from the intriguing to the downright wack-tastic.
(And yes, there are different varieties of evolutionary theory as
well.)
> > 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.
>
> Much, much, much earlier than pure Creationists beliefs, perhaps. And I
> believe that the animals and plants on Earth were taken from other planets
> (which were also God's creations). And no, i do not believe that the
> universe came into being when the Earth was created. There are many, many
> Gods and worlds.
That's interesting. By most Christian standards, it's downright
heretical. :) But the question remains--how did those plants and
animals develop where they were? Why do we have primitive and
transitional forms (yes, they do exist!) here on Earth? Why do
they date and stratify properly (save, of course, where geomorphics
have inverted or faulted the strata)? You're edging into Hoyle/
Wrackminsinghe territory there, with the "space biota" theory they
propound.
> > But for a general trashing of Creationism, you really need to read
> > this thread through. A lot of great stuff has come up.
>
> Yes, trashing someone elses beliefs is always fun ;-)
Only when there's a basis for doing so, naturally. Otherwise you're
just getting your kiester shot off like the YECs and the flat-earthers.
:)
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) If I may pose a question: Evolution is basically the theory that stuff comes from stuff that came before it. If you take stuff all the way back to the Big Bang (or whatever universe starting event you wish), where logically did *that* stuff (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
