Posted on 07/23/2004 1:48:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Most agree that the modern creation movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood, the classic work on flood geology. God has marvelously blessed in succeeding decades, and now there are scores of creationist organizations worldwide, with books and videos and seminars and websites multiplying rapidly. Not only has creation information become widely available, but the face of science has swung dramatically toward creation positions (i.e., recognition of the lack of transitional fossils, the acceptance of catastrophism in geology, etc.).
[Snip]
ICR remains distinct from other creation groups in its graduate-degree programs and staff of research scientists researching and gathering information made available to all the groups. Sometimes I wonder what could be accomplished if we had access to the huge government grants available to our evolutionary colleagues at universities, but we're winning without these grants.
The rather new Intelligent Design (ID) movement has also emerged, and has been quite effective in demonstrating the exquisite design in living things, quite beyond the ability of natural processes to produce, and the religious, naturalist underpinnings of evolution. Their membership spans a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from evolutionists, to New Agers, to Bible-believing Christians. As a tactical strategy, ID has chosen to be scrupulously secular in their presentation.
While ICR applauds the work of ID, sells their materials, and supports their efforts, we cannot join them. As a Christian, Bible-based organization, our goals are different. [Snip]
[Note: the article is copyrighted, so I've excerpted some portions.]
Shilling for the enemy, are we?
Scrupulous bump.
How would that be different? Different from searching for truth?
No. :-)
They are forcing "findings" to a faith based fixed world view as apposed to modifying a model based on the discovery of new evidence.
That's what I said, isn't it?
oooops! Sorry. Indeed it is.
I just find it amusing that Both creationists and IDers claim to be honest investigators, but one of them claims to have different goals from the other. This is one of those truely defining moments.
To their credit, they've also never been caught stuffing classified material into their socks..... at least AFAIK.
;-)
"I don't see how their followers can claim that there's any science going on there."
Yes, but science == secular evil to most of their followers, except when they're in the hospital enjoying all the advances OF science.
An interesting point, one which implies that followers of Christian Science (as in Mary Baker Eddy) are at least consistent in their actions and their beliefs, whereas those who on the one hand condenm modern science as Satan's Handmaiden while accepting the benefits of modern medicine on the other are... well, "hypocritical" comes to mind.
"We're still nuts!"
Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:
1. There should be no transitional species.I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 - - Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.
"while accepting the benefits of modern medicine on the other are... well, "hypocritical" comes to mind."
Yep. I mean, any science-slammer on this site making posts is a hypocrite, given the fact that they are using computers, and not stone tablets, to convey their messages of archaity.
LOL!
Consistency isn't their strong suit.
So9
I don't understand 4 and 5.
On 4, the timing of when creatures are created appears to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with their genetic code.
On 5, one could argue that if fossils from two species, such as humans and dinosaurs, were found together, that would argue against the Theory of Evolution, but I don't see how one could argue that in order for creation to be true one would have to find any possible combination of species. There are millions or species, so having any possible combination would require quadrillions of fossils.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.