Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 04:46:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5031 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Spencer Rezkalla writes:
> Scientific Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory
I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you,
what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be
able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more
evidence to support Evolutionary Theory.
Honestly, here's the bone I'll pick with Creationism. There's no evidence to
believe *Biblical* Creationism over any other form of Creationism, short of
faith. I can understand a logical conclusion that this world is too
complex/whatever to have been naturally occurring, hence requiring some sort
of sentient creator. I don't *agree* with it, but I understand the argument,
and it's not illogical. However, I don't see any reason to pick the Biblical
account over any other account. Why couldn't the Earth have been created in
59 days? How about 18 minutes? Why not by a group of creators rather than
only 1? Maybe the creators destroyed themselves after creating the universe?
Etc. I don't think there's any non-faith-related evidence supporting
Biblical Creationism over any other form of Creationism.
Evolution's different insofar as it's open to error. It hasn't dictated the
specifics to us, only the basics. Creationist theories generally insist on
specifics like "On the 3rd day, ....", rather than the basics like "we don't
know how or in what sort of order, but we know God created the universe".
And honestly I think that that flexibility gives Evolution a good leg up on
strength. As far as the viability of the *basics*, though, both theories are
equally logical, I think. I just find Evolution more likely...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Only in part. I was partly refering to the trend to dismiss faith-based arguments, but I was more speaking to the further dismissal of anyone bringing forward faith-based arguments. John (Neal)'s borne the recent brunt of this, but he's by no (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I don't have a problem if someone believes in a higher power, wants to attend a church, etc. This is America and you have that personal right. I DO have a problem when lawmakers in Ohio try to push their religious views into public school (...) (22 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
