We aren’t trying to convince Creationists. We’re trying to convince their audience.
I can tell you that in my brief stint as a teenage creationist, this was precisely my motivation. It was a way to intellectually trump others. Of course I was smarter than they were; I’d read more of the Bible than they had. Duh,
:smack:
Any of these. People are usually talking about YEC in threads like this, but occasionally, it will be Intelligent Design - mainly because those two movements are the main aggressors, especially in the USA.
The term ‘creationism’ simply refers to the hypothesis that the universe, and everything within it, was created by an external agency some call ‘God’. Creationism does not demand a 6,000 year old earth, or a rejection of evolutionary biology. Creationism is entirely consistent with the scientific method and it’s discoveries, because it speaks to ‘who’ not ‘how’ or ‘when’.
No, it’s not. Science applies a strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism. God is not used in science books or the scientific method. Every creationist I’ve come across, while not always a young-earther, certainly rejected that humans evolved.
This does not describe the common use of the word “creationism”, which certainly implies a rejection of evolution.
Nonsense.
“Creationism” (in the U.S. at least) is a Christian heresy that tries to sound “scientific.” It certainly is not simply a vague Deism / Directed Anthropic Principle philosophy.
Of course, while creationism does necessarily imply theism, biological evolution does not necessarily imply atheism. There still could be a God, one who simply prefers to take His time and let things happen rather than make everything at once.
Wow, I thought you were kidding, then I went searching. As a Christian who goes to church with some YEC folks, I should probably keep myself better informed about the nonsense that they are reading.
[QUOTE=Eric Hovind]
God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven pairs of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind, which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The kind grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy. The idea that the Ark would need millions of animals on-board, because there are millions of species, can therefore be seen to be incorrect. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood, in a process known as speciation. This speciation is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. Speciation selects from within an existing gene pool, whereas molecules-to-man evolution would require new genetic information to be spontaneously generated.
[/QUOTE]
That is some amazing stuff right there. Speciation! I’m surprised his head doesn’t explode.
As an average Catholic, I’d be happy to have such a discussion, and I doubt I would hear anything that threatened my views.
I mean to say: you are aware that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution, right?
Oh don’t start; I’ve already argued with this guy about his inflatable Earth theory.
To save your brains, I’ll recap: he and his ilk note that you can squash all the continents together like a round jigsaw puzzle and they very roughly fit (not in a Pangaea sense but as a solid sphere), therefore what must have happened was that they started all together and as the Earth expanded for undefined reasons they broke apart into their current shapes and positions. When I asked him whether the Earth was adding mass from below, adding mass from above or getting less dense, he said it was the first one.
So I asked him where the extra mass was coming from and how it was getting there. He promptly deleted all my posts, pretended that the conversation had never happened and continued to repeat his nonsense. Thus is it often with YECers.
Is it not the case that the Church says evolutionary processes are planned and directed by God? And that humans arose from special creation and not from ordinary evolutionary processes? Those beliefs are inconsistent with evolution. It’s like saying “I have no problem with gun control,” but specifying that “gun control” means background checks at point of sale and nothing else.
That’s a poor analogy. Background checks are a form of gun control, with accurate data and full enforcement, an effective measure, though arguably contrary to the 2nd Amendment.
However, “Humans exist because … magic” is not any kind of Science and has nothing to do with Evolution. Neither is, “Evolution turned out this way because … magic” related to Science.
You seem to have missed the point.
Religious beliefs are inconsistent with any Science.
Background checks can be the only extant form of gun control. I don’t need to define gun control as “Any possible form of gun control” or as “Any type of gun control practiced currently”.
Applying Magic to Science doesn’t equal applying limitations to a policy, or even redefining a policy.
Magic has nothing to do with Science.
Background checks are Gun Control, and Gun Control typically includes background checks.
I didn’t miss the point, I just don’t think it’s a very apt comparison.
No, you missed the point. “Background checks and nothing else” is not a reasonable interpretation of gun control.
No, they mutually irrelevant to any science.
I think “background checks and nothing else” is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of Gun Control. It’s one kind of Gun Control, and could very well function as a stand-alone policy.
“God” is never a reasonable interpretation of Science, and Science is never reasonably applied to Magic.
Me like you sentence. You very smart.
He right but not type so good.
As previously indicated, you can be a scientist and religious without conflict or contradiction; lots of perfectly respectable scientists believe in a higher being. It’s the folks who deliberately do science wrong to justify their faith that ruin things for everyone.
He not right. Because scientist superstitious not mean he able to reconcile Magic with scientific theories or methods. They not mutually exclusive but they inconsistent with each other.