All the creationism stuff over on GD made me wonder, has any religion other than Christianity got a wing which tries to explain creation (or anything else) by using scientific methods and strict adherence to religious teaching? That’s my quick-n-dirty shot at defining Creation Science, so if you’ve got another I’ll listen to that too.
I don’t know that they are as organized as creationists here (incidentally, Christian creationism is mostly a U.S. thing, with a few spots of activity elsewhere, like in Australia, but I digress), but there are Muslim creationists, Native American creationists, etc. I think that any religion which has a creation myth will probably have a few people who take it literally. Some will inevitably try to fight the science in one way or another.
Well, Orthodox Jews believe in the Biblical creation account as literal truth, of course. Where do you think the Christian fundamentalists got it from?
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller@compuserve.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
I would say the answer to the OP’s question is no. Creation “science” is the twisted spawn of American fundamentalism and the belief that if you call something science that makes it legitimate, no matter how poor your understanding of science is. Not that I’m opinionated about this or anything.
Actually, I’d say that Creationism evolved as a reaction to the perceived Atheistic threats of Darwin and, especially, Huxley.
Interesting, since Huxley invented the term “agnostic,” which to him meant someone who firmly believes in God, but recognizes that this faith cannot be substatiated by scientific evidence.
At this time, fundamentalist Christians are the only significant social group that combines literal interpretation of old creation stories with the idea that Science is a Good Thing.
There are creationists outside of Christianity, but they tend either to reject western science altogether or to operate on a two-truth system.
Outside of questions of origin, however, there are other false “sciences” based on non-Christian beliefs; both Stalin and Hitler produced quite a few.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Just to make sure, you mean Thomas, not Julian or Aldous, right? Any of them actually make sense.
Scott
“Interesting, since Huxley invented the term “agnostic,” which to him meant someone who firmly believes in God, but recognizes that this faith cannot be substatiated by scientific evidence.”
Common misconception, (agnostic=atheist). In AA, there is an entire chapter called “To the Agnostic” which tries to convince agnostics to believe in God - a total rant based on someone who didn’t bother to look up the word. The crazy thing is that most AA’s are agnostic in the true sense of the word - they have personal, skeptical, non-conventional views of God. And if you want to see people torn by their own “faith” and desparate to convince others look no further. To them belief is not essential for eternal salvation but to prevent years of delusion on skid row - an awful fate that is well nigh as opposed to being sometime after death. Their “proofs” rival anything put forth here by Fundies…
As far as creation “science” equivalents in other religions. Judaism, while the supposed source of Christianity being Jedaism (despite many of my Jewish friends finding Xtianity very alien) seems to embrace intellectual argument, so while there may be certain beliefs held to be more textually based than others - there seems to be a less acrimonious debate.
Hinduism and Buddhism are strong proponents of modern particle physics and science in general. This explains a phenomenon unknown in the West (as we obsess about ourselves), that Classical Hinduism, being less dogmatic had by the 12th C. AD, already run through many of the debates that would only be allowed in the West from the 19th Century on. Remember, Voltaire got in throuble for being a “strong” agnostic. Such an idea was discussed by Buddhists long before. Spinoza’s pantheism is presaged by Advaita Vedanta, and the Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis (was it Hegel? - sorry about that) idea is central to Taoism and somewhat less so to Buddhism.
Creation Science may be a cultural phenom, not a truly religious one.
Yes, I meant Thomas Huxley. The “atheist” reference is to the philosophy ascribed to him by the more rabid Creationists.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yeeesh. It was supposed to have been a toss-away line playing on the “evolution” of the thought of the Creationists.